Cambridgeshire Orchards Survey

Phase 2 survey (2006-09): Traditional Orchards Habitat

A survey conducted on behalf of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership

Val Perrin - May 2010 Summary

The Phase 2 survey of Cambridgeshire’s traditional orchards has focussed on their habitat structure and condition, fruit identification and their value for biodiversity. These sites were identified both from the earlier Phase 1 survey and, in some cases, personal knowledge. Surveyors were trained in the main survey methodology at orchard sites and permission was sought from owners to gain access to the sites. Information concerning the following was gathered : basic site details including location, size, age, conservation status and ownership details of the orchard. The main habitat information documented included the type, form, size, spacing, condition and veteran characters of the fruit trees, identification where possible of the fruit varieties themselves, associated tree epiphytes, the composition of the ground layer, other internal habitats, boundaries, and adjacent habitats. The frequency and type of management of the fruit trees and ground layer were recorded. Notes were also made of any wildlife observed during the visit or reported by the owner and an assessment of threat to the future of the orchards was also made.

A total of 87 sites were visited in 36 parishes; all but four were surveyed from within the orchard rather than from the outside. The majority are in private ownership, and most enjoy no special protection. The estimated mean age of the orchards was 79 years (range 20-300 years) and ranged in size from 0.1 – 17.1 hectares; 60% were 2 ha or less in size. Most orchards in the county are mixed; apple, pear and plums being the principal fruit trees. A total of 79 apple varieties, 13 pear varieties and 38 plum and gage varieties were identified, some of which were unusual or ‘lost’ varieties. Most of the old standard or half-standard fruit trees had several veteran tree characteristics, including presence of dead wood, hollow trunks or branches, rot sites and holes and flaking bark. In turn these trees supported a variety of epiphytes such as mosses, lichens or fungi, although mistletoe proved to be very rare. Just over half the orchards had recent signs of tree pruning, while 14-21% had new fruit tree plantings (apple-plum).

The ground layer of the orchards surveyed was relatively impoverished, with hardly any showing species richness in terms of wildflowers or grasses. Nevertheless, a total of 93 herb species were identified by surveyors across all sites. There was also little evidence of management of the grass sward, with cutting of parts of the site, such as paths and rides, in 53 cases. Current grazing by animals occurred at just 10 sites. Ponds holding water were found at 12 sites, whilst a number of non-fruit trees and sometimes other man-made structures comprised other habitats found within the orchards. Established hedgerows, usually of native species, surrounded all or part of the boundaries in 64% of orchards, while ditches or dykes formed site boundaries especially in the fenland orchards. Continuity with natural habitats adjacent to the orchards was not particularly notable, most sites being islands within mainly arable farmland.

Incidental wildlife records made by the surveyors comprised 53 species of birds, 17 species of mammal and a wide variety of invertebrates including butterflies, moths, bees, beetles and flies were seen. Some nationally scarce invertebrates have been identified in at least one site. A number of the orchards will be subject to specialist Phase 3 surveys of particular taxa.

While just over one third of the orchards in the survey were regarded as not facing any imminent threat to their survival, the possibility of abandonment, development, other damage or grubbing-up existed at most of the remainder, with some sites facing multiple threats. Only five of the orchards have been designated as County Wildlife Sites to date and nine sites are in some form of stewardship with Natural England (with another three under proposal).

The survey has shown that Cambridgeshire’s traditional orchards are valuable habitats in their own right, are also important reservoirs for biodiversity, but are relatively small, few in number, and scattered. Overall, they are still continuing to disappear, or face continued threats despite adoption of a recent national HAP for traditional orchards and current conservation measures.

2

Index

Page

Summary 2

Index 3

Abbreviations, definitions and conventions 5

1. Introduction and Aims 6

2. Methods 7 2.1 Identification of orchards and surveyor training 7 2.2 Information gathered 8

3. Results 11 3.1 Extent and origin of site survey data for Phase 2 11 3.2 Site details 12 3.2.1 Access 12 3.2.2 Age of orchards 12 3.2.3 Orchard size 13 3.2.4 Conservation status 14 3.3 Fruit trees 15 3.3.1 Types of fruit trees 15 3.3.2 Numbers and proportions of each main fruit tree within orchards 16 3.3.3 Tree forms 16 3.3.4 Heights of fruit trees 17 3.3.5 Spacing of trees 17 3.3.6 Girth of trees 18 3.3.7 Condition of trees 19 3.3.8 Scrub cover over trees 24 3.3.9 Canopy 24 3.3.10 Tree epiphytes 24 3.3.11 Tree management 29 3.3.12 Fruit identification 29 3.4 Ground Layer 32 3.4.1 Physical characteristics 32 3.4.2 Composition 33 3.4.3 Ground layer management 38 3.5 Other Habitats 39 3.5.1 Ponds 39 3.5.2 Non-fruit trees within orchard 39 3.5.3 Other structures / habitats 40 3.6 Boundaries 41 3.6.1 Hedgerows 41 3.6.2 Tree lines 42 3.6.3 Other boundaries 42 3.7 Surrounding Habitats 42 3.8 Wildlife species recorded incidentally 42 3.8.1 Birds 42 3.8.2 Mammals 44 3.8.3 Invertebrates 45 3.8.4 Other notable plants 48 3.8.5 Amphibians / reptiles 49 3.9. Threats to orchards in the survey 49 3.10 Phase 3 Surveys 50

3

Page

4. Discussion and Conclusions 50

Conclusion 52

Acknowledgements 53

References 54

Appendices 55 Appendix 1 : Phase 2 survey form 56 Appendix 2 : Phase 2 site visit list and survey status 60 Appendix 3 : Potential Phase 3 survey sites identified from Phase 2 62 Appendix 4 : List of surveyors 65 Appendix 5 : Example of digitised orchard boundaries round Wisbech St 66 Mary, Cambridgeshire

4

Abbreviations, definitions and conventions

BAP – Biodiversity Action Plan

COG – Cambridgeshire Orchards Group

DAFORN (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare, None) – scale commonly used in biological field surveying to denote approximate incidence of a feature

EEAOP – East of England Apples and Orchards Project

EN – English Nature (now Natural England)

HAP – Habitat Action Plan

NE – Natural England

PTES – People’s Trust for Endangered Species

Standard trees – defined in this survey as typically widely-spaced, open centre trees where the majority of the framework branches are above head height (regardless of the height of the trunk).

It is worth noting that in Cambridgeshire, because of the dearth of grazing practised in orchards, and the tendency to underplant with soft fruit or flowers, many ‘standards’ have trunks stopped at a height below 1.5 m, although the tree canopy may be grown to a great height and spread. The local definition of large fruit trees as ‘standards’ therefore applies also in cases where the trunk has been stopped low.

Half-standard trees – defined in this survey as open centre trees where the majority of the framework branches are below head height.

References given at the end of the report are identified by numbers in parentheses.

Throughout the report 4-digit numbers preceded by ‘C’ refer to the Phase 1 site numbers.

All photos, except where otherwise acknowledged, are by Val Perrin

5

1. Introduction and Aims

Phase 2 of the Cambridgeshire Orchard Survey represents the second part of a 3-stage survey of the county’s orchards. It followed identification of the remaining traditional orchards in a Phase 1 survey, which took place between October 2004 and September 2005. The Phase 1 survey was organised by the East of England Apples and Orchards Project (EEAOP) in association with the Cambridgeshire Orchards Group, on behalf of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership. A report and CD of the Phase 1 survey were published in 2006 (1). The Phase 1 survey was conducted from the outside of each orchard by trained surveyors, with the orchards being viewed from roads or public footpaths. Its objectives were to assess the distribution and condition of all types of orchard in the modern county (including Peterborough) and to locate the remaining traditional orchards, with a view to carrying out more detailed biodiversity survey work and to monitor these sites in the future. Orchards for the Phase 1 survey were identified from the Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 Millennium Edition maps. The survey included 343 sites, of which 6 proved to be inaccessible. Of this total, 89 sites (26% of the total) were identified as traditional orchards, with a further 27 sites being just remnants of traditional orchard habitat. It was significant that of the remaining orchard habitat, 114 sites were classified as commercial orchards and, more troubling, that 87 sites (25%) had been lost since publication of the OS maps in 2000. In addition, a number of other traditional orchard sites came to light during the course of the Phase 2 survey, largely as a result of owners applying for one of the stewardship schemes run by English Nature / Natural England, and these sites were also visited as part of the Phase 2 survey. Due to the limitations on access imposed by the Phase 1 survey and the fact that some orchards, especially smaller sites, were not shown on the OS maps, these sites had not been identified during Phase 1.

The aim of the Phase 2 survey, which took place between 2006 and 2009, was to gather information concerning the condition, habitats and fruit varieties of the remaining traditional orchards of Cambridgeshire, based on surveys from within each orchard. Although incidental records were made of any identifiable wildlife present at the time of the surveyor’s visit, this was not the prime aim of the survey, which required no specialist knowledge. More in-depth specialised surveys for various wildlife taxa is the principal objective of the Phase 3 surveys, which are already ongoing. These phased surveys have taken on added importance now that traditional orchards have been recognised as priority habitats for conservation action in the UK’s Biodiversity Action Plan.

Although Cambridgeshire has not been the first county to organise orchard surveys, it is believed that the particular scope and objectives of these 3-phase local surveys is a first for the UK. Other similar Phase 1 surveys to the Cambridgeshire example have been conducted in Essex and Norfolk, and a Suffolk Orchards Survey was launched in 2009. In other parts of the UK, such as Worcestershire, the Forth Valley and North Fife in Scotland, more localised surveys have been carried out of the traditional orchards there to determine their present condition and to provide support to orchard owners in maintaining and restoring these sites. In another neighbouring county, the Hertfordshire Orchards Initiative documented around 6000 sites in the county from old maps and aerial photos, of which about 2300 were found to remain. Of these, around 100 have proven to be really good traditional orchards.

The People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) launched a traditional orchards project in eight English counties in 2006 with a view to developing an orchard inventory and to support the Noble Chafer Gnorimus nobilis biodiversity action plan (BAP). This beetle, now classified as ‘vulnerable’ in the UK, is heavily dependent on the existence of old orchard trees for its life cycle. It occurs mainly in the core orchard areas of Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. The PTES, in conjunction with Natural England, are now compiling a traditional orchard inventory for all counties in England, as a vital first step in developing conservation action under the Biodiversity Action Plan.

More detailed orchard biodiversity surveys have also been conducted by other groups and organisations. On behalf of English Nature, the Wyre Forest Study Group conducted an in- depth biodiversity survey of a group of three traditional orchards on the edge of the Wyre

6

Forest in Worcestershire in 2004, which from 6353 individual records identified 1868 species of wild plants and animals associated with both the old fruit trees and associated orchard habitats (2). In the same year English Nature also commissioned a biodiversity survey of six traditional orchards across England, which included the Rummers Lane orchard at Wisbech St Mary, Cambridgeshire, as well as sites in Devon, Gloucestershire and Kent. This survey also revealed the species richness of traditional orchards, with 131 species of epiphytic lichens, 50 epiphytic bryophytes, 175 fungi and 522 invertebrate species being discovered overall (3). These surveys helped to underpin the case, led by English Nature, for recognising traditional orchards as a priority habitat in the UK BAP. The UK Government accepted the case in 2007. More discussion of previous biodiversity surveys will be made in relation to the Cambridgeshire Phase 3 orchard survey report in due course.

Behind the increase in the number of surveys concerning the country’s old orchards has lain a growing awareness by the public of the importance and value of these sites, which span historical, cultural, nutritional and biodiversity aspects, as well as being especially wonderful and peaceful places to visit and spend time in, as natural parts of the communities which created them originally.

Much of the renewed public interest in old traditional orchards has been driven by Common Ground, which began the popular Apple Day celebrations and were instrumental in setting up Community Orchards. Common Ground has published a number of excellent books on orchards, as well as a raft of Orchards Advice notes, during the late 1990s and early years of the 21st century (4-6). Common Ground, in association with English Nature, also organised a conference on Orchards and Wildlife in September 1999 at Much Marcle and Ledbury, in Herefordshire (7).

The Phase 2 survey of Cambridgeshire’s traditional orchards thus builds on these foundations and is intended to form a vital part of an inventory of this habitat resource within the county. Indeed, information gathering will hopefully continue into the future as more sites are discovered and the real intrinsic value of these old orchards comes to be better understood and appreciated.

The information in this report will be made accessible to all interested parties and it is planned to make this available both as paper and electronic forms. In addition, the individual site data will be lodged with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biological Records Centre at Cambourne.

2. Methods

2.1 Identification of orchards and surveyor training

Following identification of the 89 traditional orchard sites in the county from the Phase 1 survey, the Cambridgeshire Orchards Group (COG), which included representatives from The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership, East of England Apples and Orchards project, Natural England and other interested parties, conducted a series of planning meetings at which the aims and methods of the Phase 2 survey were defined.

For the purposes of the survey, a traditional orchard was defined as a group of five or more well-spaced top fruit trees grown on rootstocks to produce standards or half-standards with veteran tree characteristics and managed in a non-intensive manner, with none (or very low inputs) of chemicals and growing above a grass sward also managed non-intensively. In Cambridgeshire, the fruit trees are virtually all apples, pears or plums, since cherries or nut trees are not traditional features of the county’s orchards.

Based on information gleaned from orchard surveys conducted in other counties, a recording form was drawn up. Dr Heather Robertson (formerly Natural England) also provided helpful input on the range of questions and information to be gathered in the survey.

7

Volunteer surveyors were recruited by means of personal contacts of the COG and two training meetings were held in 2006, one in Wisbech St Mary and another in Bluntisham. At these meetings groups of surveyors were informed about the project and were taken through the recording form and shown how to actually conduct the surveys on traditional orchard sites. No specialised knowledge was required as the Phase 2 survey was essentially designed to record broad habitat features and not detailed species records. These initial surveyor training meetings were supplemented in the later stages of the project by two further small training meetings for new surveyors at Harston orchard in 2009. In addition, a feedback meeting for the surveyors on progress of the survey and to go through any problems was held in Haddenham in May 2008. Contact with the surveyors at other times was by email or phone. Forms were completed either electronically or as paper copies and returned to Val Perrin for entry on to computer, along with any photographs taken at surveyed orchard sites.

2.2 Information gathered

The Phase 2 survey information gathered was grouped under eight main headings (see example of recording form in Appendix 1) :

Site / ownership details Fruit trees Fruit identification Ground layer Other habitats (within orchard) Boundaries Surrounding habitats Wildlife species (incidentally observed)

In addition, surveyors were asked to record whether any perceived or known threats to the site existed, whether they had taken any photographs of the site or its features and whether they would recommend a Phase 3 survey for any particular wildlife taxa.

Under the above headings, the specific information sought included the following : i) Site / ownership details

The site name and Ordnance Survey 6-figure (or 4-figure for large sites) grid reference were recorded, together with the Phase 1 survey number (if appropriate), the type of orchard (apple, pear, plum, other), its age (if known) and ownership contact details. In addition, a note was made of the site access (private or public), any site conservation status (county wildlife site, SSSI, nature reserve, no special status), plus the date of the survey and surveyor’s name(s). ii) Fruit trees

The following information was recorded for each type of fruit tree within the orchard :

 Approximate number of trees  Tree form (as % of total tree type) – standard, half-standard, new plantings  Sample height (as % of total tree type) – under 3 m / 3-6 m / over 6 m  Spacing – average distance between trees and between rows (in metres)  Girth (at breast height, or at the highest point before the first branch fork) – taken as the average (in metres) of the largest six trees of each type, using a tape measure  Condition of trees, based on the following characteristics for each tree type :

- deadwood on live trees (largest branches or parts of trunk only) - hollow trunks or branches - standing dead trees - fallen dead wood - rot sites / holes - sap runs - flaking bark

8

(each of these characteristics was classified on the DAFORN scale of abundance)

This information would provide an idea of the veteran nature or otherwise of the fruit trees, as well as their value as potential wildlife habitats (e.g. saproxylic invertebrates in dead wood features, sap runs as insect nectar sources, flaking bark as possible roost sites for bats, other invertebrates, etc).

Surveyors were asked to record whether scrub cover existed over the trees and its extent (estimated as approximate % of total orchard tree area) and whether the tree canopy was open, patchy or closed, i.e. whether the trees’ upper branches touched or overlapped with adjacent trees or not).

Additional information was collected on the presence of any tree epiphytes, using the DAFORN scale : mosses, liverworts, lichens, ivy, mistletoe or fungi. Notes were also made about evidence of any recent tree management having been undertaken (pruning, new planting or tree felling). iii) Fruit identification

Depending on the time of year that the survey was conducted surveyors were asked to identify any fruits (apple, pear or plum varieties) that were present, or take samples that were then sent to experts at EEAOP to identify. In some cases, orchard owners were able to provide this information to the surveyor. iv) Ground layer

The estimated average height of the ground sward was recorded (in cm) and whether this was tussocky or uniform in appearance across the orchard. The presence of any anthills (indicative of old, stable grassland) was noted. The surveyors then recorded the composition of the sward (as % of the ground cover) in terms of wildflowers / grasses, nettles, brambles, thistles, docks and any fungi present. If any wildflowers could be reliably identified a note was also made of the species present. Any bare ground, whether this was trampled bare ground (e.g. by livestock) under the trees, or elsewhere, was noted. Bare ground habitat in sunny open locations within a grass / wildflower habitat can be important for certain insect species (e.g. basking for Wall Brown butterfly).

Finally, a note was made of any evident ground layer management (e.g. whether this was cut, sprayed or grazed). Such information could also be provided by orchard owners. v) Other habitats

If there were any other important habitats present within the orchard, surveyors were asked to record these. For example, the presence of ponds (and if so, whether water was still present, or if the pond was shaded from the south side) could give clues as to the likelihood of further aquatic wildlife being present, or wildlife needing open water as part of a mosaic of habitats, such as the priority BAP species Great Crested Newt. The most frequent additional habitat was the presence of non-fruit trees within the orchard (not on the boundary), as depending on whether these were native or exotic species might increase the range of further species being resident within the overall site.

The presence of other structures such as sheds, barns or walls would also provide additional roosting or shelter sites for birds, mammals and invertebrates. vi) Boundaries

Frequently, many orchards lacked clear boundaries such as hedges or tree lines, which are valuable habitat extensions for wildlife. Many of the fenland orchards were bounded by ditches or dykes, which again might prove important for wildlife if not too polluted. Fences are obviously less valuable. The presence of boundary hedgerows, together with their

9 approximate dimensions and condition, were recorded (average height, width at widest point, whether the bases were >50 cm above ground level, whether any significant gaps were present and their size - as a marker of habitat continuity). The compositions of any hedges, in terms of identifiable woody species present and whether there were any woodland plants (e.g. bluebells, dog’s mercury) present in the hedge bottom, were also recorded. Such information would provide clues to historical associations, such as a former ancient woodland, now cleared, having been nearby.

Some orchards had obvious lines of trees, rather than hedgerows, as boundaries. Old crumbling walls, if present, could be important habitats for reptiles, small birds, invertebrates or plants. vii) Surrounding habitats

The nature of the land surrounding an orchard would govern how wildlife might use the orchard and provide useful corridors to other landscape features for species. Surveyors recorded the nature of the habitat surrounding the orchard (arable / woodland / grassland / housing / gardens / paddocks/ other orchards, etc). viii) Wildlife species (recorded incidentally)

Although formal wildlife species recording was not the purpose of the Phase 2 survey, if surveyors were able to observe any identifiable wildlife during the course of their surveys, a note was made of these. Any such sightings were grouped under the headings birds, mammals, invertebrates, other notable plants not recorded as above, and amphibians / reptiles. In addition, some site owners were able to supply observations of species they had seen in their orchards.

Most surveyors undertook the surveys single-handedly, although if two or more surveyors were able to do this, the time taken was shortened and this also helped to address any health and safety concerns. All surveyors were advised to take a mobile phone and to inform someone of their visit and probable length of time away.

Phase 2 orchard survey training event, Rummers Lane orchard, Wisbech St Mary

10

3. Results

3.1 Extent and origin of site survey data for Phase 2

Some of the traditional orchards identified from the Phase 1 survey could not be visited due to the owners being untraceable, or in a few cases where permission for access was not granted. In addition, internal site visits for Phase 2 were not possible at four sites due to the orchard having either already been grubbed up, in the process of being grubbed up, or otherwise impenetrable (Table 1).

Table 1 : Orchards visited for Phase 2 but not surveyed

Phase 1 number Location Reason not surveyed

C0038 Wisbech, Garden Lane, Barratt’s Bridge being cleared C0074 Leverington, Woodcraft Equine mostly grubbed up C0146 Colne grubbed up C0152 Colne overgrown / impenetrable

In another four cases, for various reasons, only external surveys were possible for Phase 2 (Table 2), so not all features of the orchards could be assessed. However, these data were included in the overall Phase 2 data set.

Table 2 : Phase 2 orchards with external survey data only

Phase 1 number Location

C0019 Earith, near Meadow Close C0084 Gorefield (Haddon) C0089 Gorefield (Bunting) C0145 Colne, near ruined church

In six cases the original orchard that had been identified from the outside as one site in Phase 1 proved to be two sites in terms of ownership or boundaries when visited for Phase 2. In these cases both orchard sites were surveyed. In addition, the important Rummers Lane, Wisbech St Mary orchard that was classified as two sites in Phase 1 (C0101 / C01012) had been treated as one site for the purposes of the 2004-05 English Nature ecological survey of six national orchards. This orchard was not therefore re-surveyed in Phase 2 but the data (as one site) from the EN study report (3) were used in the overall data set for Phase 2.

There were also an additional 27 sites described as remnant traditional orchards in Phase 1; these were not proposed for survey in Phase 2.

A full site list and survey status for the Phase 2 orchards visited is given in Appendix 2.

In total, therefore, 87 traditional orchard sites in 36 parishes were identified for potential survey in Phase 2, comprising both those identified from the Phase 1 survey (68) and also a number of previously unknown sites (19) (Table 3). Phase 2 data are available for 83 sites, including the four sites where only external survey was possible. The remaining four sites (see Table 1) were not surveyed.

11

Table 3 : Orchards identified for Phase 2 survey by parish

Parish No. sites Parish No. sites

Barton 1 Haslingfield 1 Bluntisham 10 Histon 2 Cambridge 2 Impington 1 Childerley 1 Leverington 2 Colne 10 Melbourn 3 Coton 1 Meldreth 5 Cottenham 3 Oakington 1 Dry Drayton 1 Orwell 1 Earith 1 Over 4 Elm 4 Overcote 1 Eltisley 1 Rampton 2 Fenstanton 2 Somersham 3 Fulbourn 1 Steeple Morden 1 Girton 1 Swavesey 2 Gorefield 3 Willingham 1 Great Chishill 1 Wisbech 3 Great Shelford 1 Wisbech St Mary 7 Haddenham 2 Harston 1

Total sites 87 Total parishes 36

3.2 Site details

3.2.1 Access

Of the 87 orchard sites identified for Phase 2 surveys, the majority are in private ownership (90.8%), with only 7 having full or partial public access (Table 4). In some cases orchards have been in family ownership for several generations.

Table 4 : Access Status (Private / Public)

Type of access No. sites

Private 79 Public 7* Unknown 1

Total 87 * (1 with public right of way only on boundary)

3.2.2 Age of orchards

Information on the age of the orchards was only available from the owners as no correlation of the sites with old maps was undertaken. Many owners simply did not know the age of their orchards, so information is only available for about two-thirds of the sites (Table 5). Furthermore, only an estimated age could be provided by owners in the majority of cases, as the date of the original fruit tree planting was mostly unrecorded or lost.

12

Table 5 : Approximate age of orchards

No. with information on age 56 Approximate age range (yr) 20-300 (est.) Mean age (yr) 78.6 No. at least 100 yr old 21

It is important to note for Table 5 that if an estimated age range had been given by the owners, the average of the two figures (lower – upper) was used in calculating the overall mean for all sites. Similarly, if values were cited by owners as e.g. >100 yr, c.100 yr, <100 yr, the figure was taken as 100 yr. Of the total orchards for which information is given, 21 sites (37.5%) were at least 100 years old. The oldest orchard was estimated as being 300 years old. This was the small Chapel Orchard at Orwell, now on a 21-year lease from South Cambridgeshire District Council to the parish council. The orchard is now mostly a mature woodland site, with a few very old fruit trees remaining within it.

3.2.3 Orchard size

Information on the size of orchards coming from the Phase 2 survey itself was very incomplete and again mostly derives from the owners’ knowledge (Table 6). Only 17 sites had information available on size, which ranged from just 0.25 acres to 40 acres, with a mean of 10.8 acres.

Table 6 : Orchard size (from Phase 2 survey information)

No. with information on size 17 Range (acres) 0.25-40 Mean size (acres) 10.8

However, digitised orchard boundary information has recently become available (January 2010) courtesy of the PTES inventory mapping team, using digital aerial photographs. Therefore, the above information has been re-evaluated following completion of the Phase 2 survey and is shown in Table 6a.

Table 6a : Orchard size (from PTES digitised orchard boundaries)

No. with information on size 72 Range (hectares) 0.1-17.09 Mean size (hectares) 2.71

The total measured area of traditional orchards in the survey was just under 200 ha (195.39 ha) and the average orchard size was 2.71 ha. This represents only about 0.06% of the total land area of Cambridgeshire (8). The three largest orchards are at Gorefield (C0089 – 17.09 ha) followed by Haddenham, Aldreth Road (C0171 – 15.33 ha) and the orchard complex at Rummer’s Lane, Wisbech St Mary (C0101/2 – 8.3 ha). It is notable that 43 (60%) of the orchards are 2 ha (5 acres) or less in extent and 27 (37.5%) are 1 ha (2.5 acres) or less.

13

Old Bramley apples, Aldreth Road orchard, Haddenham

Old orchard at Girton College, Cambridge

3.2.4 Conservation status

Information on the conservation designation (if any) of the orchards was available for virtually all sites. It is of concern that in the majority of cases (84.5%) no special designation exists (Table 7). However, as a result of the Phase 1 and 2 surveys, two of these orchards (Rummers Lane, Wisbech St Mary and Heath Fruit Farm, Bluntisham) are now listed as County Wildlife Sites (CWS) and a further three sites (orchards at Harston, Somersham and Colne) have been proposed and accepted as CWSs in 2010.

In addition, nine sites are now in some form of stewardship agreements with Natural England, with another three sites under proposal.

14

One tiny (and semi-overgrown) orchard at Fulbourn (in private ownership) forms part of a nature reserve managed by the Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust, while the small and ancient orchard at Orwell is a community orchard leased by the local authority.

Table 7 : Conservation status

No. with information 84

County Wildlife Site 2 (+3 more proposed 2010) In stewardship (CSS / HLS) 9 (+3 proposed) Part of NR 1* Community orchard 1** No special conservation status 71

**Fulbourn NR **Orwell village

3.3 Fruit trees

3.3.1 Types of fruit trees

Information is available on the mix of fruit tree types for virtually all of the orchards and shows that the majority (77.8%) are mixed, with apple and plum, and apple, pear and plum being the most common types. Only 10% of the orchards are pure apple orchards, another 11% are pure plum orchards, while only one site is a pear orchard (Table 8).

During the course of the Phase 2 survey, other fruit trees were found to be present in a minority of sites, but these formed only a small percentage of the overall trees and these data have not been used to calculate the indices of veteran character or other information concerning the main fruit trees. These other fruit trees have included damson (one pure damson orchard), greengages, cherries, apricot, peach, possible mulberry and cherry plum. A tiny number of nut trees (walnut, hazel) have also been recorded (see also 3.5.2).

Table 8 : Type of orchard fruit trees

Fruit tree No. of orchards (%)

Apple only 8 (9.9%) Plum only 9 (11.1%) Pear only 1 (1.2%)

Mixed : 63 (77.7%) - apple / pear 9 (11.1%) - apple / plum 21 (25.9%) - pear / plum 4 (4.9%) - apple / pear / plum 29 (35.8%)

Total sites with information 81

15

Plum orchard, Great Chishill

3.3.2 Numbers and proportions of each main fruit tree within orchards

Table 9 shows the approximate numbers and percentages of apple, plum and pear trees present across all orchards. Depending on the size of the orchard the number of trees varies widely, with apples and plums representing the majority, and pears a smaller proportion overall. This is reflected in the percentages of each type. The biggest orchards possess several thousand fruit trees, and include both stands of one fruit tree type or mixtures of different fruit tree types. The smaller orchards may possess just single examples of a fruit tree type in some cases.

It is important to note that information on estimated numbers and proportions of fruit trees was not available for all sites so the information in the table can only be used as a guide.

Table 9 : Mean number and percentage of fruit tree types across all orchards

Fruit tree Approx no. of trees % of each type Mean Range Mean Range

Apple 344.5 (n=49) 2 - 5000 60.1 (n=61) 0.5 - 100 Plum 342.9 (n=49) 1 - 4356 50.3 (n=60) 1 - 100 Pear 102.9 (n=36) 2 - 1161 17.9 (n=38) 0.5 - 100

The numbers in brackets are for the number of sites for which the information exists. Because orchards can contain more than one fruit tree type the percentages do not add up to 100%.

3.3.3 Tree forms

The percentages of standard and half-standard fruit trees within the orchards is fairly evenly matched, with approximately 70-80% being standards and a slightly smaller proportion (62- 77%) being half-standards (for definitions please see p.5). Both standard and half-standard fruit trees can possess veteran characteristics and provide valuable substrates for other wildlife too. New plantings were present only in a smaller number of sites (14-31%, plum-

16 apple), were not numerous in relation to the overall total of trees, and in most cases were not particularly recent plantings (Table 10).

Table 10 : Tree form : mean % and range of each fruit tree type across all orchards

Apple Plum Pear

Standard 69.4 (1-100) (n=37) 79.6 (10-100) (n=33) 81.8 (10-100) (n=17) Half-standard 62.2 (1-100) (n=45) 73.0 (5-100) (n=34) 76.9 (5-100) (n=26) New planting 30.8 (1-100) (n=20) 13.8 (1-40) (n=10) 20.0 (5-75) (n=5)

The numbers in brackets are for the number of sites for which the information exists. Because orchards can contain more than one fruit tree type the percentages do not add up to 100%.

3.3.4 Heights of fruit trees

Given the above information, the heights of the trees were also fairly evenly spread within the size classes chosen for the survey (<3m, 3-6, >6m). Overall, approximately 50% of the apples and plums within orchards were large trees (>6m), although this proportion was greater (70%) in the case of pears. However, the proportion of height classes varied widely between orchards, depending on the rootstocks originally chosen and the age of the plantings, but the height range variation was similar for all three fruit types (Table 11).

Table 11 : Sample height of fruit trees (mean % and range across all orchards)

Apple Plum Pear

<3m 52.4 (1-100) (n=30) 51.6 (2-100) (n=17) 63.1 (10-100) (n=16) 3-6 m 59.5 (10-100) (n=45) 74.3 (10-100) (n=40) 62.4 (10-100) (n=25) >6 m 53.7 (6-100) (n=38) 49.9 (5-100) (n=27) 70.0 (5-100) (n=19)

The numbers in brackets are for the number of sites for which the information exists. Because orchards can contain more than one fruit tree type the percentages do not add up to 100%.

3.3.5 Spacing of trees

Unlike the dense plantings of modern commercial orchards, traditional orchards are characterised by well-spaced trees in rows set well apart to allow the full form of the tree to grow and develop. This was certainly the case in the present survey, where the average distance between the trees of all three main types was about 4-6 m, the minimum distance being 2.5–3 m. The same was true for the between-row distance, which was on average, slightly greater than the between-tree spacing (Table 12).

Table 12 : Mean spacing (range) of fruit trees in metres

Apple Plum Pear

Between trees 5.99 (2.5-13) (n=57) 5.08 (3-9) (n=50) 4.63 (2.5-8) (n=27) Between rows 6.4 (2.5-13) (n=55) 5.23 (3-9) (n=41) 4.77 (2.5-8) (n=26)

17

3.3.6 Girth of trees

Wherever possible, surveyors measured the girth at chest height (approximately 1.3 m above ground level) of the six largest trees of each type within the orchard, or at the highest point before the first main fork, and recorded the mean girth in each case. This gives an approximate measure of the age and overall size of the largest trees. It can be seen from Table 13 that apple trees had a mean girth in the sample of 1.37 m, some 40% larger than plums and 60% larger than the pears. Many of the apple trees measured had girths in excess of 1 m and there were some very large old Bramleys in a number of orchards over 2 m in girth. The largest plum trees’ girth was just over 2 m while the largest pear trees (although based on a smaller sample size) were 1.56 m in girth.

It should be noted in Table 13 that where more than one set of measurements for a fruit tree type within an orchard had been taken (e.g. for different varieties of that fruit), all have been used in the calculations.

Table 13 : Girth* of fruit trees (mean and range, metres)

Apple Plum Pear

Mean girth 1.37 0.95 0.86 Range 0.33 – 2.5 0.3 – 2.1 0.38 – 1.56 No. 71 59 34

*based on an average of 6 trees of each type within each orchard

Apple blossom at Over orchard

18

3.3.7 Condition of trees

These categories provide an idea of the veteran nature of the trees and, in turn, some indication of their potential value as wildlife habitats. The presence of dead wood, whether on live trees, or fallen, can be extremely important for saproxylic (dead wood) invertebrates and fungi. Hollow trunks, branches, flaking bark and deep knotholes or fissures may provide shelter or roosting sites for birds and bats in larger trees, while rot holes may be used by larvae of species such as hoverflies. Sap runs, though rare in this survey, may attract insects to feed on the sugary secretions.

The DAFORN scale was used to grade the presence and approximate incidence of these veteran features on each tree type overall within each orchard. Tables 14a-14g summarise this information for each of the features. In no cases were the veteran features dominant or abundant.

Table 14a : Condition of trees – dead wood on live trees (DAFORN scale)

Apple Plum Pear

Frequent 28 (42.4%) 24 (43.6%) 9 (25%) Occasional 16 (24.2%) 18 (32.7%) 10 (27.8%) Rare 20 (30.3%) 11 (20%) 16 (44.4%) (present) 2 (3.1%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (2.8%) None 1 (1.8%) No. observations 66 55 36

Most of the older orchards surveyed had varying amounts of dead wood on the living fruit trees. This was quite frequent on apples and plums, although it was mainly classed as rare in the case of pear trees. In only one orchard was there no dead wood present, in this case on plum trees.

Table 14b : Condition of trees – hollow trunks / branches (DAFORN scale)

Apple Plum Pear

Frequent 14 (22.6%) 13 (24.5%) 3 (10.3%) Occasional 16 (25.8%) 19 (35.8%) 7 (24.1%) Rare 27 (43.5%) 18 (34.0%) 17 (58.6%) (present) 2 (3.2%) 1 (1.9%) - None 3 (4.8%) 2 (3.8%) 2 (6.9%) No. observations 62 53 29

Hollow trunks or branches were present on most apples and plums, but their frequency of occurrence varied between frequent and rare. This was not such a prominent feature of pear trees (Table 14b) although these formed a smaller sample compared with the other two main types of fruit tree across the survey.

Table 14c : Condition of trees – standing dead trees (DAFORN scale)

Apple Plum Pear

Frequent 6 (9.4%) 8 (14.0%) 0 Occasional 15 (23.4%) 18 (31.6%) 9 (28.1%) Rare 29 (45.3%) 23 (40.3%) 15 (46.9%) (present) 2 (3.1%) 1 (1.8%) - None 12 (18.8%) 7 (12.3%) 8 (25.0%) No. observations 64 57 32

19

Actual standing dead trees were less of a feature in the survey, but this is perhaps not surprising as orchard owners would by and large see dead standing trees as bad practice or harbingers of disease, so they would be felled and removed. In the majority of all types of fruit orchard, dead trees were classed as rare. Between 12% and 25% of the fruit trees (depending on type) had no standing dead examples.

Table 14d : Condition of trees – fallen dead wood (DAFORN scale)

Apple Plum Pear

Frequent 10 (15.6%) 7 (12.7%) 4 (12.9%) Occasional 13 (20.3%) 10 (18.2%) 4 (12.9%) Rare 28 (43.8%) 27 (49.1%) 14 (45.2%) (present) 2 (3.1%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (3.2%) None 11 (17.2%) 10 (18.2%) 8 (25.8%) No. observations 64 55 31

As for the previous category, fallen dead wood left lying in orchards was uncommon and up to 26% of sites had none at all (Table 14d). However, as trees age, limbs and branches continually break off, so that as fallen dead wood is removed it will be continually replenished. Usefulness of the fallen wood as habitat for other wildlife would depend on it being left undisturbed, but as always there is a balance to be struck between the amount of fallen wood left lying and considerations such as access to the trees for work to be carried out. The making of wood piles at various locations around the orchard offers one solution to retaining dead wood for invertebrates, yet not leaving it lying all over the site.

Table 14e : Condition of trees – rot sites / holes (DAFORN scale)

Apple Plum Pear

Frequent 22 (33.8%) 19 (34.5%) 9 (29.0%) Occasional 25 (38.5%) 20 (36.4%) 11 (35.5%) Rare 13 (20.0%) 11 (20.0%) 10 (32.3%) (present) 2 (3.1%) 1 (1.8%) - None 3 (4.6%) 4 (7.3%) 1 (3.2%) No. observations 65 55 31

As explained previously, rot sites and holes can be very valuable for a range of wildlife. The survey showed that these features were either frequently or occasionally present in about one third of the sites across all fruit tree types, with very few sites possessing none at all.

Table 14f : Condition of trees – sap runs (DAFORN scale)

Apple Plum Pear

Frequent 1 (1.6%) 3 (5.2%) 2 (6.5%) Occasional 3 (4.7%) 8 (13.8%) 2 (6.5%) Rare 28 (43.8%) 25 (43.1%) 12 (38.7%) (present) 2 (3.1%) 1 (1.7%) - None 30 (46.9%) 21 (36.2%) 15 (48.4%) No. observations 64 58 31

Table 14f summarises the presence or absence of sap runs. As can be seen, this feature was mainly rare or absent across all sites. As is commonly supposed, sap runs tend to be more of

20 a feature of plum trees, and there is a suggestion here that this may be the case, although the numbers involved are small in the ‘frequent’ and ‘occasional’ categories.

Table 14g : Condition of trees – flaking bark (DAFORN scale)

Apple Plum Pear

Frequent 26 (39.4%) 21 (36.8%) 10 (30.3%) Occasional 17 (25.8%) 18 (31.6%) 7 (21.2%) Rare 15 (22.7%) 12 (21.1%) 11 (33.3%) (present) 2 (3.0%) 1 (1.8%) - None 6 (9.1%) 5 (8.8%) 5 (15.2%) No. observations 66 57 33

Flaking bark may partly depend on the variety of fruit tree planted (e.g. it is a prominent feature of old Bramleys, but tends to occur less frequently on other varieties). Here the data in Table 14g show that flaking bark occurs on all three fruit tree types, with broadly similar incidence categories from ‘frequent’ to ‘rare’, allowing again for the fact that the sample size for pear trees is smaller than for the apple and plum trees surveyed. In only a minority of orchards was there no flaking bark observed at all.

Combination of veteran tree features

It is important, however, not to view each of these veteran tree features in isolation as it is the overall combination of different veteran features and the tree type, plus possibly additional properties such as bark chemistry, that may dictate the real value of the orchard trees to support wildlife. This could form a whole research project in itself and is beyond the scope of the present survey. However, for interest, the veteran tree features data were examined to see which orchards possessed four or more of the following features for any tree type at a frequent or occasional incidence : presence of dead wood on trees, hollow trunks or branches, rot sites and holes, standing dead trees, or fallen dead wood. This might be considered as potentially richer habitat for other wildlife in contrast to fewer of such features. Although this choice might be considered a rather arbitrary grouping since it is unknown how valuable, relatively, each of the features is, these five were felt to be probably the most useful veteran characters compared with sap runs (which were rare in the survey) and flaking bark.

For apple trees, 17 orchards had at least four of the five chosen veteran tree features; these are listed in Table 14h, while for pear trees, only 5 orchards qualified (Table 14i). Orchards with four or more veteran plum tree characters numbered 16 (Table 14j). Some sites had two fruit tree types with the necessary veteran tree characters (see * in Tables 14h-14j).

Table 14h : Orchards with apple trees having 4 or more of the selected veteran tree features overall at ‘F’ or ‘O’ DAFORN incidence

Number Location Number Location

C0003 Wisbech St Mary C0284b* Fenstanton C0019* Earith C0293 Rampton C0072 Leverington C0327 Meldreth C0147 Colne X1 Cambridge C0149 Colne X2* Oakington C0190 Cottenham X3 Cottenham C0200* Histon X15 Orwell C0202 Impington X16 Great Shelford C0284a* Fenstanton * orchards with other fruit tree types also having the required number of veteran characters

21

Table 14i : Orchards with pear trees having 4 or more of the selected veteran tree features overall at ‘F’ or ‘O’ DAFORN incidence

Number Location

C0116* Elm C0123* Elm C0132* Elm C0200* Histon C0240 Over

* orchards with other fruit tree types also having the required number of veteran characters

Table 14j : Orchards with plum trees having 4 or more of the selected veteran tree features overall at ‘F’ or ‘O’ DAFORN incidence

Number Location Number Location

C0019* Earith C0259 Over C0027 Somersham C0261 Over C0096a Wisbech St Mary C0284a* Fenstanton C0107 Wisbech St Mary C0284b* Fenstanton C0116* Elm X2* Oakington C0123* Elm X13 Steeple Morden C0132* Elm X17 Haddenham C0185 Cottenham X19 Willingham

* orchards with other fruit tree types also having the required number of veteran characters

However, it must also be remembered that the presence or absence of these veteran tree features to some extent will reflect the rigour of any management practices within the orchard. By tradition, orchard owners are unlikely to allow dead branches or fallen dead wood to persist for long, as these are pruned or cleared away to ensure tree health and prevent the harbouring of supposed diseases. It is only in very recent times that it has been recognised that these features are key in providing richness to the biodiversity of old orchards, and a plea needs to be made for their retention wherever possible, allowing for necessary health and safety considerations.

22

Line of remnant plum trees, Hithercote orchard, Over

Veteran tree features on old apple

23

3.3.8 Scrub cover over trees

For the 83 sites from which a note of the extent of scrub cover over the trees was recorded, 44 (53%) had no scrub cover at all. Of the remainder, the scrub cover ranged from <1% to >80% over the trees (mean 24.9%). In a few orchards the extent of scrub cover varied within different parts of the orchard. Ivy and brambles were the most frequent plants making up the scrub cover.

From the point of view of fruit production scrub cover is undesirable since it blocks light from the branches and prevents proper development of blossom and prevents easy access for pollinating insects. Scrub can also make conditions too dark for epiphytic mosses, liverworts and lichens, and make microclimates unsuitable for saproxylic invertebrates characteristic of well-lit open-grown trees. A small amount of scrub cover on the other hand may provide a more secure location for nesting birds and offer more sheltering sites for insects at night or during inclement weather.

3.3.9 Canopy

This measure refers to the meeting or overlapping of the outer branches of the fruit trees with their neighbours to provide a closed, open or patchy canopy, and is therefore different from the previous measure of scrub cover where additional plants have overgrown the trees. Of the 83 sites for which information on the nature of the tree canopy was recorded, 52 sites (62.6%) had open canopies across the site, while 17 (20.5%) were classed as patchy and just three (3.6%) had closed canopies. For the remaining sites the nature of the canopy varied across the site, with either two, or all three, categories being present in different areas.

Again, closed canopies are not ideal for fruit production and can also obstruct movement of people and machinery around the orchard. However, closed or patchy canopies provide more continuous wildlife corridors than fully open canopies. Different degrees of canopy closure can provide a range of habitats for epiphytes like lichens, which differ in light and moisture requirements.

3.3.10 Tree epiphytes

This information gives some indication of the value of the orchard trees in providing substrates for other plants, and in turn, other forms of wildlife. However, the survey sheet did not specify the distribution of epiphytes between different types of fruit trees in mixed orchards; observers were asked just to record the overall abundance of each type of epiphyte (mosses, liverworts, lichens, ivy, mistletoe and fungi). Nevertheless, in a few cases, observers did provide a breakdown of epiphytes between apples, plums and pears. It is clear from this that apples are the richest substrates for epiphytes. Plums, for example, are generally rather poor hosts for bryophytes (mosses and liverworts). There is too little information on the value of plums and pears for different types of epiphytes, although old pears do appear to be equally valuable to apples in regard to hosting bryophytes or lichens.

Bryophytes and lichens also tended to be less frequent in orchards with a heavy ivy covering, as to be expected.

Table 15 provides an overall summary of the DAFORN distributions of the six classes of epiphytes.

24

Table 15 : Distribution frequency of epiphytes within orchards

Type of epiphyte Distribution (DAFORN scale)

Mosses Dominant 3 (3.9%) Abundant 8 (10.4%) Frequent 20 (26.0%) Occasional 23 (29.9%) Rare 11 (14.3%) None 12 (15.6%) No. of observations 77

Liverworts Dominant 0 Abundant 0 Frequent 1 (1.6%) Occasional 5 (8.2%) Rare 8 (13.1%) None 47 (77.0%) No. of observations 61

Lichens Dominant 3 (3.8%) Abundant 11 (14.1%) Frequent 22 (28.2%) Occasional 26 (33.3%) Rare 5 (6.4%) None 11 (14.1%) No. of observations 78

Ivy Dominant 2 (2.5%) Abundant 14 (17.7%) Frequent 7 (8.9%) Occasional 19 (24.1%) Rare 12 (15.2%) None 25 (31.6%) No. of observations 79

Mistletoe Dominant 0 Abundant 0 Frequent 0 Occasional 2 (2.9%) Rare 3 (4.3%) None 64 (92.7%) No. of observations 69

Fungi Dominant 0 Abundant 2 (2.6%) Frequent 7 (9.2%) Occasional 27 (35.5%) Rare 19 (25.0%) None 21 (27.6%) No. of observations 76

i) Mosses

Compared with orchards in the west of England, which tends to have a wetter climate than the east of England, the moss flora in Cambridgeshire is often less abundant. This is shown

25 by the results of the present survey, where there are few sites with dominant or abundant moss flora. The most common categories for moss abundance were ‘frequent’ (26%) and ‘occasional’ (30%). About 15% of the orchards had no mosses at all. However, previous specialist work has shown that the range of moss species in the county’s orchards can be richer than that of orchards in western England (3), with one or two very rare species being found at some locations. Bryophyte surveys have already been conducted at the better orchards as part of the ongoing Phase 3 work.

Moss-covered apple, Moor Drove orchard, Histon

ii) Liverworts

In contrast to mosses, liverworts were not recorded as a prominent feature of orchards surveyed for Phase 2, although in some cases it is possible that surveyors may not have been able to clearly distinguish liverworts from mosses, the former being relatively inconspicuous and superficially similar in appearance to the latter. Again, preliminary expert work has shown that there are only three species of liverwort associated with orchard trees in East Anglia which occur with any regularity, Frullania dilatata being by far the most frequent (Robin Stevenson – personal communication). In the present survey 77% of orchards had no apparent liverworts. iii) Lichens

As for mosses, overall, lichens were not classed as ‘dominant’ or ‘abundant’ in Cambridgeshire orchards; the categories ‘frequent’ and ‘occasional’ represented over 60% of the incidence categories. Lichens were recorded in 67 orchards. The better sites will be surveyed for their lichens in Phase 3. The only lichen survey to date has been conducted at Rummers Lane orchard, Wisbech St Mary, as part of the English Nature six national orchards survey : 44 species were identified (3).

26 iv) Ivy

Ivy varied widely in its dominance in orchards. In two cases it was classed as ‘dominant’ and in another 14 ‘abundant’, accounting for about 20% of the surveyed sites. However, it was only ‘rare’ or ‘occasional’ in another 39% and was absent altogether in approximately 32% of orchards. Again, some light ivy covering of some trees may be useful in giving additional shelter or roosting sites for birds and insects, but when too dominant can actually threaten the survival of trees, mainly as a result of the increased weight breaking branches or splitting trunks when subjected to the extra stress of gale force winds. Dense ivy can also make conditions too dark for bryophytes and is not favourable for saproxylic invertebrates of open- grown, well-lit trees. v) Mistletoe

A parasitic plant, mistletoe is important in its own right, both for its folklore traditions and also for harbouring its own suite of BAP species (four mistletoe-dependent bugs, the Mistletoe weevil and Mistletoe Marble moth). However, it is surprisingly rare or absent in Cambridgeshire’s traditional orchards. Over 92% of surveyed orchards were found to contain no mistletoe at all. In another three it was ‘rare’ and in another two it was ‘occasional’. These records included its presence on at least five apple trees (its favoured fruit tree host) in a Rampton orchard, but it was present as just one (grafted) clump at another site and occurred only on non-fruit trees within the orchard at another. The situation in Cambridgeshire again contrasts with orchards further west in Britain, especially the cider orchards of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, or on the near continent, where mistletoe is far commoner. It is unknown whether mistletoe favours particular varieties of apple tree more than others.

Epiphytic fungi, Iram Farm orchard, Rampton/Willingham

27

Ganoderma adspersum, Moor Drove orchard, Histon

vi) Fungi

Fungi were not strongly associated with the fruit trees of the orchards in this survey. Those present were predominantly bracket fungi, often Ganoderma spp. The spectacular Sulphur polypore (Laetiporus sulphureus) was present on one or two fruit trees. In almost 90% of sites fungi were classed as absent, rare or occasional. Table 15 shows that fungi were frequent in just seven sites (9.2%) and abundant at just two sites (2.6%). The latter were two orchards in Wisbech St Mary (C0003 and C0096a). The only known comprehensive survey of orchard fungi so far has also been in Wisbech St Mary, at the Rummers Lane orchard (3), where 37 species were found to be associated with wood, particularly dead wood, of the fruit trees, with a range of additional species being found in the grassland there. A very rare fungus (Sarcodontia crocea), a priority species in the UK BAP, has been observed on a fruit tree at Harston orchard and it would therefore repay the effort to conduct further work on orchard fungi. A Phase 3 survey of the best sites for fungi identified from Phase 2 is accordingly planned for the future.

28

Sarcodontia crocea at Harston orchard

3.3.11 Tree management

The number of orchards for which a note of any management, or lack thereof, was recorded was 75. A total of 22 orchards (29.3%) had no sign of any recent management. Of the rest, 40 (53.3%) had evidence of recent pruning, 10 (13.3%) had evidence of tree felling and 27 (36.0%) had recent tree plantings. Many sites had evidence of several forms of tree management practice having taken place recently. In a few cases dead wood was removed from the site.

Overall, apart from the small number of orchards that were being grubbed out, the impression was that owners were lightly managing their fruit trees, with old and diseased trees and branches being taken out and new trees being planted, although the latter practice was by no means extensive. Apart from the sites where no apparent tree management was taking place, the approach for the conservation of many sites was commensurate with retaining their value both as providing fruit crops and also benefiting wildlife.

3.3.12 Fruit identification

Fruit tree varieties were identified in 57 of the orchards. Determination was either by the owner, especially when the orchard had been in the same family for generations, or by EEAOP experts, or sometimes at local Apple or Plum Days with resident experts in

29 attendance. Occasionally owners had sent samples to Brogdale (National Fruit Collection, Faversham) for identification. In a small number of cases the surveyor had been able to determine some of the fruits. The full list of varieties identified from old established orchard trees during the course of the survey is shown in Table 16. It is almost certain that this is incomplete since other varieties are still coming to light.

Table 16 : Fruit varieties identified

Apples Pears Plums

Allington Pippin Beurré Hardy Anna Spath Blenheim Orange Calebasse Bosc Aviemore* (?Avalon) Bramley’s Seedling Concorde Belle de Louvain Charles Ross Conference Black Diamond Chivers Delight Donnet* Black Prince Cox’s Orange Pippin Doyenné du Comice Bountiful Crispin Laxton ?var Burbank Discovery Pitmaston Duchess Burrell’s Red Myrobalan Dumelow’s Seedling Red Lambert* Cambridge Gage Egremont Russet Beurre Superfin Czar Ellison’s Orange Swan’s Egg ‘Damsons’ Emneth Early Williams Bon Chrétien Early Rivers Emperor Alexander Giant Prune Falstaff ‘Greengage’ incl St Julien Fearn’s Pippin Herman Fiesta Laxton’s Cropper Fortune Marjorie’s Seedling Gala Merton Gem Gascoyne’s Scarlet Mirabelle Golden Delicious Monarch Greensleeves Newton* Grenadier Opal* Histon Favourite Ouillin’s Golden Gage Howgate Wonder Pond’s Seedling Idared President James Grieve Purple Pershore Jolly Miller Rivers’ Early Prolific Kentish Fillbasket Victoria Lane’s Prince Albert Wallis’s Wonder Laxton’s Fortune Warwickshire Drooper Laxton’s Superb Willingham Gage Lord Derby Wisbech Victoria Lord Grosvenor Yellow Cherry Plum Lord Lambourne Yellow Egg Monarch Newton Wonder Pearl Perfection Queen Cox Red Delicious Reverend W. Wilks Spartan Starking Stirling Castle Tydeman’s Early Worcester Vista Bella Warner’s King Worcester Pearmain

*Some of these could not be verified in standard texts (9-11) but have been included as mentioned by owners as present.

30

Bramleys were by far the most frequently recorded apples, Concorde was the most common pear variety and Victoria or Czar similarly for the plum varieties. Some of the fruits discovered were quite unusual or rare varieties; one notable find was the ‘lost’ Jolly Miller apple in a working Somersham orchard. Graft wood taken from this tree has enabled EEAOP to propagate new specimens for sale to other orchard owners. As well as new plantings of some varieties listed in Table 16, additional old Cambridgeshire apple varieties planted recently by some orchard owners and identified in the survey have included Cottenham Seedling, Green Harvey, Hunter’s Majestic, Lord Peckover, Lynn’s Pippin, Morley’s Seedling, Murfitt’s Seedling, New Rock Pippin and Red Victoria. At Rummers Lane, Wisbech St Mary orchard, for example, a whole new field of Cambridgeshire apple varieties has been planted in recent years.

At Girton College old orchard, near Cambridge, 39 varieties of apples exist as standard and half-standard trees, along with several pear and plum varieties (Table 16a). This orchard represents one of the best sites for a wide range of fruit varieties within a relatively small area. The traditional orchard at Rummers Lane, Wisbech St Mary, has 29 identified apple varieties to date, plus Conference pear and Burbank, Czar, Purple Pershore and Victoria plums. Apple varieties in this orchard not mentioned in either Tables 16 or 16a include Beauty of Bath, Red Ellison’s Orange, Annie Elizabeth, Jonagold, Ashmead’s Kernel, Keswick Codlin and Michaelmas Red. Thus, to date, a total of 79 established apple varieties have been identified in traditional orchards from the survey, plus the nine additional new plantings of old Cambridgeshire apples mentioned above (total 88 apple varieties). A total of 13 pear varieties and 38 plum and gage varieties have also been identified in the survey, although a few of the pear and plum varieties would need to be independently verified by the relevant experts sometime.

Table 16a : Fruit varieties at Girton College old orchard

Apples Pears Plums

American Mother Conference Cambridge Gage Beauty of Kent Fondant Czar Bismarck Pitmaston Duchess Garland Gage Blenheim Orange Giant Prune Bramley’s Seedling James Charles Ross Monarch Chivers Delight October Blue Crimson Bramley ? Prune Court Pendu Plat Victoria Cox’s Pomona Devonshire Quarrenden Dr Harvey Dumelow’s Seedling Egremont Russet Ecklinville Seedling Fortune Gladstone Gloria Mundi Howgate Wonder James Grieve John Standish King of the Pippins Lady Sudeley Laxton’s Exquisite Laxton’s Delight Laxton’s Superb Lord Derby Monarch Newton Wonder

31

Norfolk Beefing Normanton Northern Greening Patricia Peasgood Nonsuch Rosemary Russet Scarlett Pimpernel Warner’s King Wealthy Wheeler’s Russet (Golden Russet)

Cambridgeshire fruit varieties

3.4 Ground Layer

3.4.1 Physical characteristics

The ground layer of the surveyed orchards showed wide variation in height both between sites, as well as within sites. Based on a total of 79 observations, the mean height of the sward was 41.5 cm (range 2.5 – 200 cm). The height of the sward depended both on the plant species present, as well as the management regimen in place (if any). Many owners used different management techniques in different parts of larger sites. For example, in the Rummers Lane, Wisbech St Mary orchard complex, the average sward height was measured as 5-10 cm where cut, 15 cm where grazed by sheep, and 30-40 cm where unmanaged. Some owners kept the sward short around the fruit trees, or between rows, others maintained a system of mown paths, rides or glades across a site. A variety of sward heights will provide the greatest diversity to other wildlife, both because of the degree of shelter available, as well

32 as the temperature gradient between the top and bottom of the sward, which can be considerable.

The nature of the sward was classified as ‘uniform’ in 31 sites, as ‘tussocky’ in 37 sites and mixed (tussocky and uniform) at two sites. Anthills (indicative of old, stable meadow land) were present at only 11 sites, listed in Table 17. This is because the ground layer in most Cambridgeshire orchards has been subject to a considerable amount of disturbance over long periods. Instead of livestock being grazed under the trees, crops were sometimes grown. In many orchards a tradition of soft fruit growing beneath the top fruit trees was in fashion for periods in the past.

Table 17 : Orchards where anthills were present in the ground sward

Site no. Location Notes

C0116 Elm C0147 Colne C0149a Colne C0200 Histon C0202 Impington C0261 Over one or two C0284b Fenstanton C0303 Melbourn X13 Steeple Morden fairly frequent X14 Fulbourn old, damaged by grass cutting X16 Great Shelford very frequent

3.4.2 Composition i) Grasses and wildflowers

Grasses and wildflowers comprised the majority of the ground layer in most orchards surveyed (66 sites), averaging 70.1% (range 1-100%) of the ground cover, but the species diversity was impoverished in most cases, consisting of a narrow range of species, with those present being typical of the coarser types of herbs. However, the species present include some found in unimproved grassland (such as Bird’s-foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus), woodland (Dog’s Mercury Mercurialis perennis) and tall herb vegetation (Field Scabious Knautia arvensis). A list of the 93 herb species identified overall by surveyors across a number of orchards is shown in Table 18.

Table 18 : List of wildflowers / grasses recorded in orchard ground flora

Latin name Common name

Achillea millefolium Yarrow Agrimonia eupatoria Agrimony Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley Arctium lappa Greater Burdock Armoracia rusticana Horse-radish Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass

33

Artemisia vulgaris Mugwort Arum maculatum Lords and Ladies Asparagus officinalis Wild Asparagus Bellis perennis Common Daisy Borago officinalis Borage Calystegia silvatica Convolvulus Cardamine pratensis Cuckoo Flower Carex pendula Pendulous Sedge Centaurea nigra Black Knapweed Chaerophyllum temulem Rough Chervil Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay Willowherb Chamomilla suaveolens Pineapple Mayweed Chenopodium album Fat Hen Clinopodium vulgare Wild basil Conium maculatum Hemlock Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed Corydalis sp. Corydalis Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot Dipsacus fullonum Wild Teasel Epilobium hirsutum Greater Willowherb Epilobium montanum Broad-leaved Willowherb Euphorbia sp. Spurge Filipendula ulmaria Meadowsweet Galium aparine Cleavers Galium mollugo Hedge Bedstraw Geranium dissectum Cut-leaved Cranesbill Geranium robertianum Herb Robert Geranium pratense Meadow Crane’s-bill Geum urbanum Herb Bennet Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed Hieracium pilosella Mouse-ear Hawkweed Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog Hordeum murinum Wall Barley Hypericum sp. St John’s-wort sp. Hypochoeris radicata Cat’s-ear Knautia arvensis Field Scabious Lamium purpureum Red Deadnettle Lamium album White Deadnettle Lathyrus pratensis Meadow Vetchling Linaria vulgaris Common Toadflax Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass Lotus corniculatus Common Bird’s-foot Trefoil Malva sylvestris Mallow Mercurialis perennis Dog’s Mercury Myosotis arvensis Field Forget-me-not Odontites verna Red Bartsia Ophrys apifera Bee Orchid* Phleum pratense Timothy Picris echioides Bristly Ox-tongue Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain Plantago major Greater Plantain Polygonum persicaria Redshank Potentilla anserina Silverweed Potentilla reptans Creeping Cinquefoil Primula veris Cowslip* Primula vulgaris Primrose* Prunella vulgaris Self-heal

34

Pulicaria dysenterica Common Fleabane Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup Ranunculus ficaria Lesser Celandine Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup Rubus caesius Dewberry Senecio jacobaea Ragwort Senecio squalidus Oxford Ragwort Senecio vulgaris Groundsel Setaria pumila (an alien) Silene dioica Red Campion Silybum marianum Milk Thistle Sonchus arvensis Perennial Sowthistle Stachys sylvatica Hedge Woundwort Stellaria media Common Chickweed Symphytum officinalis Common Comfrey Tamus communis Black Bryony Taraxacum officinalis Dandelion Torilis japonica Upright Hedge-parsley Tragopogon pratensis Goat’s-beard Trifolium repens White Clover Veronica arvensis Wall Speedwell Veronica beccabunga Brooklime Veronica chamaedrys Germander Speedwell Veronica persica Common Field Speedwell Vicia cracca Tufted Vetch Viola sp. Violet

* the more interesting species are marked with an asterisk

Cuckoo-flowers at Aldreth Road orchard, Haddenham

Very much the same type of coarse herbs, together with nettles, docks and thistles was found in the ground flora survey organised by English Nature of the Rummers Lane orchard at

35

Wisbech St Mary (3). By contrast, the meadow flora at Woodland Grange, Steeple Morden orchard (x13) when surveyed by Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust botanists in June 2007 contained some finer grassland wildflowers such as Bee Orchid, Bird’s-foot trefoil, Black Knapweed, Common Vetch, Cowslip, Field Madder, Field Scabious, Lady’s Bedstraw, Meadow Vetchling, Ox-eye Daisy and Rough Hawkbit, among other species (25 in total).

As well as the native flora present in Chapel Orchard, Orwell, introduced species included Bluebells, Snowdrops and Foxglove. In one small orchard at Dry Drayton under restoration (C0263), an Emorsgate seed mix has been sown after clearance of the overgrown ground layer to recreate a finer sward consisting of Greater Knapweed, Black Knapweed, Self-heal, Red Campion, Ox-eye Daisy, Nipplewort, Meadow Buttercup, Yarrow, Heath Bedstraw, Lady's Bedstraw, Primrose, Cowslip, Sweet Vernal grass, Cocksfoot and Garlic Mustard.

A separate botanical survey at Heath Fruit Farm, Bluntisham (C0176) on 12 July 2007 by the Huntingdonshire Fauna and Flora Society recorded 89 species of plants, including seven species of planted trees and shrub. These data will be included in the Phase 3 survey report.

ii) Nettles

Nettles were present in 68 of the 75 sites for which this information was recorded and their frequency varied from <1% to 80% of the ground cover (average 17.5%). In some cases (n=11) just the presence of nettles was noted by the surveyor; this could refer to anything from ‘few’ to ‘frequent’. The presence of nettles indicates enrichment of the soil, usually from the repeated fruit fall every autumn, if not harvested, and subsequent decay. This would tend to diminish the likelihood of the finer herbs and grasses being present in the sward. In themselves, if present as good-sized patches in sunny locations in an orchard, nettles will also support the life cycles of several species of Vanessid butterfly, as well as a host of other invertebrates.

iii) Brambles

Where their presence or absence was recorded, brambles occurred in 52 of 65 sites (80%). If information on the extent of bramble cover of the ground layer was noted, this ranged from 0.5% to 90% (average 15.2%) at the most overgrown sites. For six sites, just the presence of brambles was recorded (no figure for extent).

When present as a non-dominant component of the ground flora, brambles can provide nectar and pollen from their flowers in summer for insects (especially butterflies, bees and small beetles), and sugars and food from their fruits in autumn for butterflies, birds and small mammals. Their dense and impenetrable tangles of stems also offer valuable shelter and refuge for nesting birds. However, due to their rapid growth they can quickly take over an orchard if left unchecked, smothering both the ground layer and suppressing growth of other herbs. If this situation persists, eventually the fruit trees themselves will also be smothered by brambles, reducing flowering, pollination and fruit crops.

iv) Thistles

The presence or absence of thistles in the ground layer of orchards was documented for 61 sites. Abundant thistles can indicate disturbance, for instance from over-grazing by livestock. Generally, the proportion of thistles comprised 5% or less of the ground cover at most sites, although one site at Bluntisham had 5-25% and Harston orchard had 30% thistle ground cover overall, interspersed with many other plants. Thistles were absent at 8 sites and classified just as ‘present’ at 13 sites (few, occasional or just ‘present’). Where species were recorded, these proved to be Cirsium arvense (Creeping Thistle) and C. vulgare (Spear Thistle). Milk Thistle (Silybum marianum) occurred at one site.

36

Thistle flowers can also provide nectar for butterflies and bees and support a rich and varied fauna of insect herbivores and associated predators, parasites and inquilines (12), although thistles are not especially typical of orchards.

v) Docks

A note of the presence or absence of docks was made for 55 sites. As with thistles, docks can be abundant where ground is heavily disturbed, for example in damp, over-grazed pastures. Docks were absent in 14 sites and classed as just present, or ‘a few’ in 12 sites. For the majority of sites where the extent of ground cover due to docks was recorded, these formed 5% or less in 21 cases. At eight sites the extent of ground cover due to docks was estimated as between 7.5% and 25%. The site with the largest extent of docks in the ground cover was Harston community orchard (25%). This site also had the greatest extent of thistle ground cover relative to its size (see above).

Docks are known to be used as larval foodplants by a wide range of common moth species (13). Where identified in the survey, dock species included Broad-leaved Dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and Wood Dock (R. sanguineus).

vi) Fungi in ground layer

Fungi were not a common feature of the ground layer in the orchards surveyed, although this does depend in part on the season in which the survey took place. For most survey forms this information was left blank, but where the surveyor did make a note of the presence / absence of fungi in the ground sward, 18 sites had ‘none’ or ‘none seen’ recorded. However, fungi were noted as present in 15 sites. Where the surveyor was able to make some attempt at species identification, these included Fairy-ring fungi (Marasmius oreades), Common Ink Cap (Coprinus atramentarius), Glistening Ink Cap (C. micaceus), Lepiota spp. (including Shaggy Parasol, L. rhacodes), Field Mushrooms (Agaricus campestris), Mycena spp. (including M.acicula), Bolbitius vitellinus, Wood Blewit (Lepista nuda), Entoloma clypeatum, and even a waxcap (Hygrocybe sp.) in one orchard.

At Rummer’s Lane, Wisbech St Mary, the earlier English Nature survey (3) recorded some 18 species of fungi associated with grassland, including five species of waxcap in a 5 metre strip of grassland between a ditch and the edge of the orchard, plus two other notable species (Clavaria kreiglsteineri and Stropharia inuncta).

As the ground layer in most Cambridgeshire orchards is not rich in floristic terms and has usually been subject to a great deal of disturbance, it is not expected that fungi are likely to be a notable feature of this particular habitat. However, where the orchard ground layer is of a reasonable quality it would be worth surveying for fungi there, alongside those of the fruit trees, in view of the waxcap finds at Rummers Lane and at one site at Swavesey.

37

Mycena acicula

vii) Bare ground

This did not feature in the majority of orchards surveyed (recorded as ‘none’ in 33 sites, and ‘very little’ in another five sites). Generally, bare ground was restricted to pathways or old bonfire sites overall (1-5% of the ground cover), although at a few sites the proportion was greater than this (10-40%). At two sites bare ground even comprised about 50% and 80% of the overall ground area due to human activity (in one of these sites, extensive earthworks with banks and ditches had been created in an abandoned orchard, probably for bike scrambling activities).

There was also little evidence of trampled bare ground beneath the fruit trees, even in the few cases where grazing animals were a feature. Herbicide spraying of the strip of ground between trees to suppress weed growth was apparent in a small number of orchards. Where present, this accounted for 5-50% of the overall ground area.

Obviously, extensive areas of bare ground within orchards are counter-productive for wildlife, although a few small areas may be useful as basking sites for some insects, such as butterflies on sunny days, as the ground temperature then becomes warmer in these spots than in the surrounding grass.

3.4.3 Ground layer management

Few orchards in the survey had no management of the ground layer at all, but most had some form of grass cutting, whether this was just to keep open paths and rides, or in a minority of cases, cutting of the whole sward on at least an annual basis. Twenty sites were not cut at all, whereas 53 sites had some form of cutting regime. Where the extent of cutting was recorded,

38 this ranged from less than 5% of the ground area up to 50% or more. There seemed to be little evidence of any regular cutting regime for most sites, owners just doing this when convenient.

Spraying, if conducted at all, was usually restricted to just spraying around the bases of the fruit trees or between the trees within rows, in order to suppress weed growth (7 sites). Only 13 sites in total were recorded as having some form of spraying; in one case this was noted as being 50% of the area. For 49 orchards the surveyor recorded that no spraying was used at all; in other cases this information was unknown or left blank.

Grazing was used currently in only 10 orchards, although a few had been grazed in the past (though not in recent years). Sheep were used in five orchards and the extent of sheep grazing was noted to be between 30-100% of the site in four of the cases. Cattle, along with sheep, were used at one site, horse-grazing (70%) at another, but in the remaining cases, only poultry were employed (3 sites), or the sward was only noted to be grazed by rabbits in one case. However, grazing of the sward by wild rabbits is naturally more prevalent in a lot of orchards. Formal grazing was noted as not occurring at 54 of the orchard sites.

3.5 Other Habitats

3.5.1 Ponds

Ponds were found in 14 orchards and water was still present in 12 of these. One orchard at Bluntisham (C0176) had five ponds on site, another had a scrape in an adjacent field which dried out frequently, while a third small orchard had a pond immediately adjacent in a garden. One pond had been newly dug by the owners. An orchard at Bluntisham (x10) had a spring within it, although little water was present at the time of survey (July). The old community orchard at Orwell (x15) was unusual in having a spring and chalk stream running through it, being the site of former cress beds. Shading of the pond from the south side in the form of trees or buildings was present at four of the sites.

Ponds are a relatively unusual feature of traditional orchards in Cambridgeshire, because of the lack of a history of livestock grazing here. Most ponds had been dug or created by owners to increase the opportunities for other wildlife, such as birds, aquatic invertebrates or amphibians.

3.5.2 Non-fruit trees within orchard

Surveyors were asked to record the presence of other, non-fruit trees or shrubs within the orchard (as opposed to the boundaries). A wide range of other trees were found in some orchards (see Table 19), the most frequent of which were elder, ash, oak and hawthorn.

Table 19 : Non-fruit trees present within orchards (no. of orchards)

Hawthorn (13) Wild prunus (3) Crab apple (1) Oak (12) Beech (2) Privet (1) Ash (12) Norway spruce (2) Lilac (1) Elder (11) Blackthorn (2) Juniper (1) Walnut (5) Field maple (2) Spindle (1) Birch (4) Weeping willow (1) Sallow / willow (4) Sweet chestnut (1) Horse chestnut (4) Elm (1) Holly (3) Scots pine (1) Hazel (3) Alder (1) Poplar (3) Alder buckthorn (1) Sycamore (3) Copper beech (1)

39

It might be argued that walnut, hazel and elder are fruit / nut trees, since the first two are sometimes grown as orchard trees in other parts of the country, though not in Cambridgeshire, where these trees were incidental or ornamental. One orchard at Newnham, Cambridge (C0338) had what appeared to be an old overgrown grove of coppiced hazel stools within it, though the present owner was not aware if hazel had been cropped for poles or nuts at all in the distant past. Elder trees, where present, are a frequent weed species within orchards, although their flowers and fruit may be used for making wine and jam. Most of the other trees and shrubs had been planted as ornamental varieties by owners, or occasionally had arisen spontaneously and been incorporated within the overall orchard habitat. It is perhaps unusual that crab apple was only recorded in one orchard as this was sometimes planted as a pollinator for the other apple trees in old orchards.

3.5.3 Other structures / habitats

Quite a variety of other man-made structures or habitats were found within many orchards, old sheds or outbuildings being the most frequently found for storing tools, equipment or fruit boxes in the past. Many of these were now derelict. Other structures recorded during the survey are listed below :

House Derelict buildings Brick wall / structure Barns Old garages Stables Workshop Greenhouse Tree-house Chicken sheds / runs Hay shelter Pigsty Windpump Caravan / old vehicles Picnic tables / seats Small bridges Fruit boxes

It is difficult to be specific about the relative value of these other structures for wildlife, but depending on their materials and state of repair, some may act as refuges or nesting sites for birds, small mammals or invertebrates. Some of the following had clearly been provided or left for the benefit of wildlife :

Bird boxes / feeders Log piles Beehives Compost piles / grass cutting piles

One orchard had polytunnels of soft fruit, another had a vegetable patch within it, while another had maize and soft fruit interplanted between some rows of fruit trees. Another had maize strips and feeders for game birds, being used for shooting.

3.6 Boundaries

3.6.1 Hedgerows

Established hedgerows were present on one or more boundaries at 53 sites (63.8% of total sites). No established hedges were present at 20 sites, but in one case (C0101/2) a newly planted hedge was present on one side of one area, while in another (C0259) there were no

40 formal hedged boundaries but a complex of old plum lines with suckers and bramble overgrowth comprising the boundary. At a third site (C0338) there was no true hedgerow but a scrub belt and a mix of fairly mature trees formed the boundary, while at a fourth site (x13) there was a line of Prunus on the north side, conifers on the south side, with a wildlife strip and some ornamental cherries on the east side. Post and rail or wire fences, grass rides, tree lines and bushes formed the boundaries on some sites. In the north of the county, ditches often formed the boundaries to the orchard.

Where hedgerows were present, the average height ranged from 2.5 m to 30 m (mean 6.4 m) and the width at the widest point ranged from 0.5 – 15 m (mean 3.6 m). However, it is worth noting that according to the Defra survey method, hedgerows >5 m at the base would be classified as shelterbelts or scrub.

Surveyors were asked to give some idea of the physical continuity of the hedge by recording whether the base, on average, was more than 50 cm above the ground and whether there were any gaps, apart from gates and entrances. Where this information was recorded (n=42), in 25 sites (59.5%) the hedge base was not >50 cm above ground, and in 17 cases (40.5%) it was >50 cm above ground. Again, where this information was recorded (n=46), there were no gaps forming >10% of the hedge or wider than 5 m in 16 sites (34.8%). Where sizeable gaps were present, the breakdown was as follows :

Size not recorded - 4 >10% and >5 m - 9 >10% and <5 m - 2 <10% and >5 m - 3 <10% and <5 m - 12

Obviously, the gappier the hedge and the further from the ground that the base is leads to the hedge being a less effective wind break than continuous hedges growing from the ground. This would be deemed to be in an unfavourable condition for wildlife. Nevertheless, even gappy and discontinuous hedges may provide shelter, food sources, roosting and nesting sites for wildlife. Hedges or tree lines were frequently planted round orchards as wind breaks to protect the fruit trees and create warmer conditions inside, thereby assisting flowering and fruiting.

A wide range of woody species were present within the hedgerows, which were very infrequently of only one species. The commonest species present was hawthorn (present at 38 sites), followed by ash (22 sites), blackthorn (20 sites), elder (20 sites), Prunus spp. (17 sites), bramble (14 sites), elm (13 sites) and field maple (12 sites). Other woody species (with number of sites at which present) were wild rose (10), willow / sallow (7), oak (6), poplar (6), ivy (5), sycamore (4), alder, privet, walnut, dogwood and hazel (3 sites each), horse chestnut, conifers, Leylandii, buckthorn, guelder rose, beech (2 sites each), and spindle, hop, silver birch, holly, yew, crab apple and false acacia (one site each). Occasional stunted and pruned pear trees formed part of the hedge at Iram Farm orchard, Willingham (x19).

Depending on the species, situation and condition, these species would in turn act as hosts for other wildlife.

Woodland plants growing in the bottom of the orchard hedgerows would only be present if the hedge had formed part of the former boundary of old woodland, or if they had been deliberately introduced. Occasional bluebells were present under the hedgerow on one side at Aldreth Road orchard, Haddenham (C0171), and some recently planted English bluebells were found at Rampton (C0297). There were also some woodland plants in the verge adjacent to the old orchard at Childerley (C0265). Otherwise, if any hedgerow bottom plants were recorded at all, only common, non-woodland indicator plants were present.

In terms of management of the orchard hedgerows, this question was left unanswered for many sites, it not being known whether any management took place or not. In many sites it appeared that no management practice was in place for the hedgerows. Some form of cutting

41 or trimming took place at 32 sites, and the frequency was stated to be annually at 15 sites, but only infrequent or minimal at 9 sites.

3.6.2 Tree lines

Tree lines were not a common feature of the orchards surveyed. Some form of mature tree lines occurred at 11 sites, although the species present were not identified. Poplars were noted at three sites, mature hawthorns at four sites, and plums or damsons at five sites, while other trees recorded included ash, alder, field maple, conifers, hornbeam, spruce and beech.

3.6.3 Other boundaries

There were ditches or dykes, either dry or containing water at the time of survey, at 34 sites. As mentioned previously, most of these formed one or more boundaries to the orchard. Streams were present nearby, or flowed through part of the orchard, in two sites.

A small section of wall was present near the entrance of one orchard.

3.7 Surrounding habitats

To provide some idea of habitat inter-connectivity through which wildlife species might move into or through the orchard from the surrounding habitats, a record of the types of land use surrounding each orchard was made.

By far the commonest component of the surrounding habitats mix was arable farmland (57 sites), followed by gardens (35 sites), while housing was a fairly frequent use of adjacent land (27 sites). However, other orchards, either overgrown or traditional or modern commercial, were nearby at 30 sites. Grassland or meadow occurred near 21 sites, while paddocks, or some form of grazing land was present near 16 sites. Other surrounding habitats recorded were woodland (10 sites), roads (9 sites), soft fruit or small horticultural business (4 sites), allotments (3 sites), golf course (1 site), college grounds / sports field (1 site) and railway line (1 site). Ponds were adjacent to two orchards.

3.8 Wildlife species recorded incidentally

3.8.1 Birds

The list of birds seen within the orchards was more extensive than expected (53 species) (Table 20). The most frequently recorded birds were Wood Pigeon and Green Woodpecker (both present at 23 sites), followed by Blackbird (18 sites), Great Spotted Woodpecker (17 sites) and Pheasant (13 sites). No account of abundance of individual species within orchards was made, however. The list is non-systematic, depending purely on the ability of the observer to identify the bird species at the time of the survey visit, or the owner’s casual observations.

Table 20 : Birds recorded in orchards (no. of sites at which recorded)

Grey Heron (1) Mistle Thrush (3) Sparrowhawk (3) Lesser Whitethroat (1) Kestrel (6) Whitethroat (2) Pheasant (13) Blackcap (2) Moorhen (2) Chiffchaff (3) Woodcock (1) Willow Warbler (4) Stock Dove (1) Goldcrest (1)

42

Wood Pigeon (23) Long-tailed Tit (5) Collared Dove (4) Blue Tit (9) Turtle Dove (2) Great Tit (7) Cuckoo (2) Treecreeper (1) Barn Owl (2) Jay (6) Little Owl (6) Magpie (7) Tawny Owl (2) Jackdaw (1) Green Woodpecker (23) Rook (2) Great Spotted Woodpecker (17) Carrion Crow (6) Lesser Spotted Woodpecker (3) Starling (10) Skylark (1) House Sparrow (4) Swallow (4) Tree Sparrow (1) House Martin (1) Chaffinch (9) Wren (9) Brambling (1) Dunnock (3) Greenfinch (3) Robin (7) Goldfinch (5) Blackbird (18) Linnet (1) Fieldfare (8) Bullfinch (4) Song Thrush (7) Yellowhammer (2) Redwing (2)

The order of birds is as according to KH Voous

Some of the records, e.g. Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, were old records, not necessarily occurring during the period of the survey. Other species, not known to be associated with orchard habitat, e.g. Grey Heron and Moorhen, may have been chance records linked with the presence of nearby ponds, or were ‘one-offs’. A more detailed and systematic bird survey is currently being conducted in selected orchards as part of the ongoing Phase 3 survey programme.

Little owl

3.8.2 Mammals

There were 17 species of mammal identified as occurring in orchards in the survey, although some of them, e.g. moles, were identified by virtue only of the presence of their signs. The most frequently encountered mammals were rabbits, which are common particularly in abandoned orchards where they make extensive burrows beneath the tree roots in many

43 cases. The full list of mammals recorded with the numbers of orchard sites in which they were recorded are summarised in Table 21.

Table 21 : Mammals in orchards (no. of sites at which recorded)

Rabbit (30) Mole (molehills only) (5) Hare (1) Badger (7 + 4 setts) (bats) (3 incl. possible roost site) Fox (17) (mice) (2) Weasel (1) (shrews) (1) Stoat (1) (deer) (2) Muntjac deer (10) Hedgehog (3) Grey squirrel* (6) signs / tracks of mammals (2) Wood mouse (2) Harvest mouse (1) House mouse (2) Field vole (2) Common shrew (2) Brown rat (3) Common Pipistrelle (1)

* some sightings were of the black variety now spreading in Cambridgeshire

Foxes are also commonly seen in orchards, even during daylight hours, and the presence of badgers, including their setts, either current or abandoned, is notable. The ubiquitous Muntjac, now extremely common throughout the countryside here, especially in woodlands, can also inflict considerable damage by debarking fruit trees and such signs were evident in several orchards surveyed. Small mammals are almost certainly present in more orchards than recorded here, but special surveying using e.g. Longworth traps would be needed to detect and identify them. It would also repay surveying selected orchard sites especially for bats, particularly those with large old trees possessing veteran features, as these may be used by some bat species for roosts. Other deer species found in the county, e.g. Fallow and Roe deer, may also use orchards as temporary shelter.

Badger

44

3.8.3 Invertebrates

Considering the fact that the Phase 2 survey was a non-specialist survey, a large number of invertebrate groups, and even individual species, were identified by surveyors, depending on their personal knowledge. It is already clear therefore that old orchards are valuable habitats for the life cycles of many of these insects and spiders, as has been shown in more detailed ecological surveys (2, 3, 7).

Notes on those groups of invertebrates seen during the survey, together with lists of any identified to genus or species level, are summarised in the following. i) Butterflies

A total of 20 species of butterfly were identified across the orchards surveyed. These were all common species, not dependent on specialised habitats. The complete list, with numbers of orchards in which they were identified, is summarised below.

Small Skipper (2) Large Skipper (2) Brimstone (3) Large White (8) Small White (6) Green-veined White (4) OrangeTip (2) Brown Argus (1) Common Blue (3) Holly Blue (2) Red Admiral (14) Painted Lady (2) Small Tortoiseshell (4) Peacock (6) Comma (9) Speckled Wood (10) Gatekeeper (7) Meadow Brown (7) Small Heath (1) Ringlet (4)

The most frequently noted species were Red Admiral and Speckled Wood. Numbers of the former fluctuate from year to year; the adults can often be seen feeding on the juices from fallen fruit in orchards in the autumn. Speckled Wood produces several broods per year and can therefore be seen throughout the entire spring and summer. It favours a woodland edge habitat in dappled sunlit conditions and hence is well-suited to orchards as well as all types of woodland. The larvae are grass feeders. In addition, ‘white’ butterflies were noted at 6 sites and just ‘butterflies’ were noted at 6 sites. An orchard at Impington (C0202) had recorded 20 butterfly species alone. ii) Moths

Day-flying moths were noted in six orchards; incidental species identified were Brimstone moth, Mother-of-Pearl and Cinnabar moth larvae. Moth-trapping has been conducted at two sites (C0263 Dry Drayton and C0241 Harston Community Orchard). The species lists for these sites are quite extensive (currently 50-100 species at least) and will be reported as part of the ongoing Phase 3 survey work. iii) Dragonflies

Dragonflies and damselflies are totally dependent on water for their life cycles and so the presence of the adult stage in orchards is incidental, these insects seeking out smaller flying

45 prey around the trees and above the grass sward. Dragonflies were recorded in 21 orchards as follows :

‘Dragonflies’ (3) ‘Darters’ (7) ‘Hawkers’ (2) Common Blue Damselfly (1) Southern Hawker (4) Migrant Hawker (1) Common Darter (3)

Probably the most frequently encountered species within orchards are maturing blue damselflies (Azure, Common Blue and Blue-tailed Damselflies being the most likely) and also Common Darter dragonfly, often to be seen basking on bare surfaces to gain heat during late summer. iv) Bees

Bumblebees, as well as honey bees, are frequent within orchards and are an obvious presence during the spring and summer. Indeed, orchard fruit pollination is heavily dependent on the presence of bees and these insects should therefore be considered as part of a healthy ecosystem within orchards. In former times, local beekeepers were encouraged by owners to place their hives within orchards, but this practice is now much less frequent than before, largely due to the decline and neglect of many orchard sites, as well as the lack of commercial fruit production today in the traditional sites.

Bees (both bumblebees or honey bees) were noted in 15 sites. This total should be much higher but was dependent on the time of year that the survey was conducted. Some observers noted that white-tailed and red-tailed bumblebees were present at some sites and the Common Carder bee Bombus pascuorum was noted in at least one site. v) Wasps

As opportunist feeders, wasps are a common component of the fruit harvest in orchards, frequently eating large parts of plums or gages in particular. They also frequent the rotting fruit on the orchard floor in autumn. Wasps were noted at eight sites, but will almost certainly be present within all orchards during the fruiting season. vi) Beetles

Beetles occur in many orchard habitats including the fruit trees, grass sward, ground layer and the surrounding hedgerows. The beetles of decaying wood (saproxylic) beetles in orchards may include some important species. Probably the best known of these is the Noble Chafer Gnorimus nobilis, which is highly dependent on old fruit trees and is known from old orchards further west in England, and in Kent, but has not been recorded in Cambridgeshire, so far as is known.

During the present Phase 2 survey, beetles were noted for just four sites and only one species, 7-spot ladybird Coccinella 7-punctata was specifically identified.

A Coleoptera survey was conducted separately at Heath Fruit Farm, Bluntisham (C0176) by Dr Colin Welch of the Huntingdonshire Fauna and Flora Society on 12 July 2007. This recorded 60 species of beetle across the site. The other specialist invertebrate survey at Rummers Lane orchard, Wisbech St Mary (C0101/2) on behalf of English Nature found 46 species of beetle, including the saproxylic Nationally Scarce, Category B species Scolytus mali, a bark beetle and Magdalis cerasi, a weevil of dead and dying twigs on trees, as well as Phymatodes testaceus, a longhorn beetle (Indicator of Ecological Continuity, Category 3). This survey examined both canopy and field layer of the orchard, as well as the saproxylic habitats. Twenty-three species of Coleoptera were found here as saproxylic inhabitants. These two surveys will be discussed as part of the Phase 3 data report.

46

vii) Orthoptera

Orchards with long grass swards, especially if these are more open to sunlight, tend to be the preferred habitat for many species of Orthoptera (crickets and grasshoppers). The presence of these insects was noted at five sites. The only species positively identified was Roesel’s Bush-cricket Metrioptera roeselii. This is now found commonly in rough, or ungrazed grassland across a wide variety of locations, but was originally confined to the south-east of England. It has been spreading progressively northwards and westwards over the last 30 years or so. viii) Flies

The Diptera (true flies) comprise a very large number of species, but it is unknown whether any of them are particularly dependent on orchards per se. However, there are many saproxylic specialists among them. Flies of one family or another were noted by surveyors at 12 sites. Crane-flies were noted as being present at two sites and St Mark’s-flies Bibio marci were recorded at one site. This species is so named because it often appears close to St Mark’s Day (April 25th) and drifts slowly above vegetation with its legs dangling, making it easy to identify in flight.

Another group of attractive flies are the Hoverflies (Syrphidae), some of which have been noted in the orchard surveys. For example, 10 species of hoverfly have been positively identified in one small orchard at Dry Drayton (C0263). Rot holes and sap runs on fruit trees within orchards can be important habitats for the larval stage of hoverflies, and a grassy sward with wildflowers may provide nectar sources for the adult flies, which are particularly drawn to umbellifers.

Fourteen species of Diptera were recorded at Rummer’s Lane orchard, Wisbech St Mary. These included nine species of hoverfly (3). ix) Spiders

Very few observations were made of the presence of spiders within the orchards but they are certainly commonly seen. This group really requires more specialised surveys to locate and identify them. Spiders were noted in three orchards and the superficially-similar harvestman was observed at one location. The English Nature sponsored ecological survey (3) of Rummer’s Lane orchard at Wisbech St Mary recorded only two species of Araneae (spiders) : Dysdera crocata from the ground layer and Gibbaranea gibbosa, beaten from apple blossom, plus the Opilionid Mitostoma chrysomelina, a harvestman, in a suction sample from a tree base. x) Molluscs

This group has been very little studied in relation to orchards. One surveyor identified the banded snails Cepaea nemoralis (Dark-lipped banded snail) and C. hortensis (White-lipped snail) at Bury Lane Fruit Farm, Melbourn (C0303). xi) Other invertebrates

Incidental notes of other invertebrates seen within the orchards included single records of woodlice, ants and woolly aphid.

The first Cambridgeshire record for Lasius brunneus, the brown ant (or tree ant) was made from apple red-rot at Rummers Lane orchard. This is a Nationally Scarce Category A species. It has a limited distribution in southern England and nests within the decaying heartwood of old orchard fruit trees, and is more commonly seen in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire (3).

47

Comma butterfly, Red-belted Clearwing moths, Wasp beetle, Eyed Hawk-moth

3.8.4 Other notable plants

Most of these have already been covered by the ground flora observations (see 3.4.2 i). Additional records under this heading were of a single Common Spotted Orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii and a Wood Blewit mushroom Lepista nuda at Girton College old orchard (C0339).

3.8.5 Amphibians / reptiles

These animals may be found using the cover and invertebrate food sources provided by orchards. The presence of amphibians is obviously more likely if the site contains a pond or there is one nearby.

During the present survey, records of amphibians or reptiles were provided by the owners of four orchards (Table 22).

Table 22 : Amphibians and reptiles within orchards

Location Species

C0202 Impington Grass snake, frogs, toads C0263 Dry Drayton Common frog, Common toad, Smooth newt C0297 Rampton Adder, frogs X4 Overcote Grass snake

48

3.9 Threats to orchards in the survey

Surveyors were asked to assess whether there were any obvious threats facing the orchards, either known, or suspected, that might result in future alteration or destruction of the site. This information was completed for virtually all sites. The results were as follows :

None currently (32)

Abandonment (27)

Development (20)

Grubbing-up (14)

Rabbit damage (1)

Uncertain (5)

Some sites faced more than one possible threat. In a few cases the orchard had already been sold to a developer, or was even in the process of being cleared.

Therefore this information shows that only in just over a third of cases was there no apparent or perceived threat to the integrity of the orchards under present ownership. The twin problems of abandonment or development were cited for many sites and grubbing-up was a real or possible threat in 14 cases. This has real implications for the future of some of the county’s best orchard sites. To date, only five sites have been approved as County Wildlife Sites, but this does not infer any legal protection. Nine sites are in stewardship agreements, with another three proposed. Although this provides protection for the duration of the scheme, it is not an absolute guarantee of permanent protection for orchards, which is still sorely lacking for these habitats as a whole.

3.10 Phase 3 Surveys

The potential for Phase 3 surveys of certain wildlife taxa were mentioned for 49 orchards. The results are detailed in Appendix 3. In some cases the surveyor was uncertain whether a Phase 3 survey was appropriate – these are indicated by a question mark after the site number.

In summary, the following numbers of orchards were identified from the Phase 2 survey as suitable (or possibly suitable) for some form of Phase 3 survey (some orchards were recommended for several types of specialist survey) :

Bryophytes 20 Lichens 5 Flora 7 Fungi 6 General invertebrates 16 Saproxylic invertebrates 9 Butterflies 4 Moths 11 Birds 22 Small mammals (incl bats) 8 General (not specified) 4 Fruit varieties 1

49

Where appropriate, some of these sites will be subject to Phase 3 surveys, depending on ownership permissions and the advice and availability of expert surveyors. As of the time of publication of this report, some Phase 3 surveys have already been completed.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This Phase 2 (habitat) survey of Cambridgeshire traditional orchards is certainly the first of its type for the county. It has provided a valuable insight into the condition, structure and composition of the various habitats present in our best orchard sites but is by no means complete or comprehensive. Some good sites are likely to have been missed as the process of the identification of the sites for this survey, based on the Phase 1 survey data and personal knowledge, is less than perfect. Indeed the recent digitisation of orchard boundaries from aerial photos in Google Earth by PTES (Appendix 5) has identified a great many more potential orchard sites than those in Phase 2 and it is to be hoped that many of these will be ground-truthed by other trained surveyors in the near future, to confirm or rule out the presence of further traditional orchard sites in the county.

The current survey has revealed that the majority of the traditional orchards in Cambridgeshire are of mixed fruit tree types, being predominantly of apple, plum and pear. They are not large in extent in terms of individual sites, and overall form but a tiny fraction of the land area and habitat mix of the county. The majority are in private ownership. About one quarter are estimated to be at least 100 years old.

As regards the fruit trees themselves, both standards and half-standards show a good proportion of veteran characteristics, mainly of apples and plums, with 17 orchards having trees with at least four of five chosen veteran features (dead wood, hollow trunks or branches, rot sites and holes, standing dead trees or fallen dead wood). The presence of one or more veteran features will make these trees more, or less, valuable as substrates for other wildlife and it is to be hoped that further work on the fungi and dead wood (saproxylic) invertebrates in Phase 3 will reveal more insights into the value of such features. This is also helped by the fact that most of these orchards enjoy only light management by their owners, which will preserve these features. Work on the bryophytes of some of these old orchard trees has already revealed some important discoveries. However, the Phase 2 survey has shown that other epiphytes on the fruit trees such as liverworts, lichens and mistletoe, are not common in Cambridgeshire. This may partly be related to the drier climate or type of fruit tree in the east of England, compared with sites further west, for example. The history of air pollution in the region also affected lichens, which are now starting to recover as atmospheric sulphur dioxide levels have fallen sharply in recent years.

Ongoing fruit identification has shown that the Cambridgeshire traditional orchards harbour a wide variety of apples (79) and plums (38), although the predominant varieties are Bramleys and Victorias, respectively. Other varieties are present less abundantly, in some cases being represented by single trees within sites. Two sites have a large number of fruit varieties and the future of these sites is reasonably secure. Undoubtedly more fruit varieties will come to light as more people bring samples for identification to the increasingly popular Apple Days held around the county each autumn.

The survey has also shown that the ground flora of Cambridgeshire orchards is relatively impoverished, with a narrow range of the coarser herbs being present at most sites. Nettles, docks and bramble are fairly frequent. The presence of old grassland, denoted by finer wildflowers, grasses and anthills, is very rare in our orchards. This was also the finding in the EN survey at one of the best county orchards at Rummers Lane, Wisbech St Mary (3) and to a similar extent in the three orchards surveyed in the Wyre Forest (2). In Cambridgeshire, most of the ground sward is left uncut, or only minimally managed, to the extent of keeping open paths and rides. Very little grazing is now practised in the old orchards. This lack of cutting or grazing will tend to favour only the coarser plants in the ground layer over time.

50

The biodiversity value of some of the orchards will be increased due to the presence of additional habitats, such as ponds, other non-fruit trees, possibly other man-made structures and wildlife-friendly features in the form of log piles, bird boxes or compost piles. Most orchards had some form of established hedgerow partially or completely surrounding the site, or in some cases tree-lines. The hedgerows varied in height and condition, but most were composed of a range of native species and were only lightly managed, if at all. The denser, thicker hedgerows would form valuable sites for birds and insects, by providing shelter, food and nesting sites, as well as serving as windbreaks to protect the fruit trees. Most of the orchards existed as ‘islands’ within a mainly arable farmed landscape, but where more natural habitats, or other traditional orchards existed adjacent to the site, these would serve as wildlife corridors, enabling the migration of species into and out of the site.

Although not the prime purpose of the Phase 2 survey, a wide range of wildlife was recorded incidentally, including 53 bird species, 17 species of mammal, 20 species of butterfly, plus many other invertebrates including bees, wasps, moths, dragonflies, flies, beetles, and 93 species of herbs overall. Some of these groups will be the subject of more in-depth survey for Phase 3. Such findings are indicative of the richness of traditional orchards for wildlife, as has been found in other orchard surveys (2, 3).

As with many other counties, Cambridgeshire has lost a large proportion of its old orchards. In the period between 1950 and 2000, the area of orchard decreased dramatically from approximately 5000 ha to about 1000 ha (an 80% loss). The Phase 1 and 2 surveys have shown that this loss is still occurring, largely through abandonment and development. All orchards are still vulnerable to disappearance and their survival will depend largely on the efforts and enthusiasm of their owners, unless there is a marked change in the laws concerning conservation of this type of habitat. The recent listing of traditional orchards as BAP habitats and the designation of the better orchards as County Wildlife Sites or the placement of others in some form of stewardship may help, but again none of these measures is a guarantee of their long-term survival.

However, as well as defining the status of our remaining county traditional orchards, another benefit of the present survey has been to locate orchard owners and to put them in touch with other sources of help, be these financial, for stewardship arrangements, or practical, in terms of providing training courses in pruning and grafting, for example. In line with many other counties with an orchard heritage, Cambridgeshire has a habitat action plan (HAP) for traditional orchards, with targets to conserve the biodiversity and habitats, as well as increasing the area of orchards by creating new orchards using local fruit varieties wherever possible. EEAOP has played a large part in orchard conservation and restoration, by offering fruit trees for sale and by providing a source of expertise in orchard management and fruit identification.

It is to be hoped that by putting our remaining traditional orchards ‘on the map’, allied with the growing public interest in their conservation, may serve to better safeguard their future.

Conclusion

This Phase 2 survey of Cambridgeshire’s traditional orchards included 87 sites of apple, pear or plum trees, either standards or half-standards, located in 36 parishes. Most sites are small and isolated and are in private ownership; some are at least a century old. All are generally lightly managed or unmanaged. The fruit trees possess several veteran characters in many cases, with associated mosses, lichens and fungi. A wide range of fruit varieties has been identified and in some cases the orchards included new plantings of local varieties.

The ground flora of the county’s orchards is not rich, but despite this, over 90 species of herb were identified, with other incidental wildlife records from the orchards including 53 species of bird, 17 species of mammal and many invertebrates. A number of these groups will be surveyed for Phase 3. Additional biodiversity interest for many of the orchards comes from the boundary hedgerows, and other habitats inside, or adjacent to, the orchard. However, many

51 of the surrounding habitats are man-made, intensive arable farmland being the principal adjacent habitat.

In the majority of cases our traditional orchards still face uncertain futures, with abandonment and development being the main threats, often as owners become too old to manage the sites, or sell up to outside interests. Relatively few sites enjoy any form of conservation designation and these in themselves are not absolute guarantees of permanent protection.

The present survey has shown that Cambridgeshire’s traditional orchards are valuable assets for biodiversity, but now represent only a tiny fraction of the whole landscape, with little habitat continuity between them and with ongoing threats to their survival.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge and thank all the Phase 2 surveyors (see Appendix 4) for their hard work and also the orchard owners who kindly gave access permission for their sites to be included in the survey.

Special thanks also must go to Dr Heather Robertson (formerly Natural England) who provided much helpful expert advice during the planning and conduct of the survey and also to Dr Nigel Russell of Natural England for his general support and interest in traditional orchards, for identification of additional sites for the survey and for help with stewardship matters and advice to orchard owners.

In addition, the Cambridgeshire Biodiversity Partnership provided advice and financial help with the survey and the Cambridgeshire Orchards Group again helped with support and encouragement throughout. Thanks must also go to Anita Burrough at PTES for provision of digitised orchard boundaries and assistance with this information for Cambridgeshire.

Heather Robertson and Bob Lever also kindly provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report.

52

References

1. The Condition of Orchards in Cambridgeshire. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Phase 1 Orchard Survey. East of England Apples and Orchards Project, on behalf of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership. 2006

2. Smart MJ, Winnall RA 2006 The biodiversity of three traditional orchards within the Wyre Forest SSSI in Worcestershire : a survey by the Wyre Forest Study Group. English Nature Research Reports, no 707

3. Lush M, Robertson HJ, Alexander K, Giavarini V, Hewins E, Mellins J, Stevenson R, Storey M, Whitehead P 2009 Biodiversity surveys of six traditional orchards in England. Natural England Research Reports, no. 025

4. Orchards. A Guide to Local Conservation Common Ground 1989

5. Common Ground 2000 The Common Ground Book of Orchards : Conservation, Culture and Community London : Common Ground

6. Community Orchards Handbook. Common Ground 2008

7. Orchards and Wild Life Conference Papers Common Ground with English Nature Much Marcle and Ledbury, Herefordshire 22 and 23 September 1999

8. Land Cover in Cambridgeshire, 2000 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Section for Earth Observation. Cambridgeshire Environment Report, 2005 www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk

9. Morgan J, Richards A The Book of Apples. Ebury Press, London, 1993

10. Taylor HV The Plums of England. Crosby Lockwood & Son Ltd, London, 1949

11. Arbury J, Pinhey S Pears. Wells & Winter, Maidstone, 1997

12. Redfern M Insects and Thistles. Naturalists’ Handbooks 4 Cambridge University Press, 1983

13. Crafer T Foodplant List for the caterpillars of Britain’s butterflies and larger moths. Atropos Publishing, 2005

53

Appendices

1. Phase 2 survey form

2. Phase 2 site visit list and survey status

3. Potential Phase 3 survey sites identified from Phase 2

4. List of surveyors

54

Appendix 1 : Phase 2 survey form

EEAOP Cambridgeshire Orchard Survey: Phase 2 (Traditional Orchards) ______

1. Outline details of orchard / surveyor details

Site name ………………………………… Phase 1 survey no. ……………

Grid reference of site (4-figure area or 6-figure centred) TL / TF ……………….

Type of orchard (estimate % of each) : Apple …… Pear …… Plum …… Other ………

Owner details …………………………………………………………………………………………

Access : Private / Public Approx. age of orchard (if known) …………. yrs

Site status : County wildlife site / SSSI / nature reserve / none of these

Date of survey …………………..

Name of surveyor ……………………………………………

2. Fruit trees

Apple Pear Plum Other Approx. no.

Tree form (%) : - Standard - Half-standard - New plantings

Sample height (%) - under 3m - 3-6 m - over 6m

Spacing (aver. dist. between trees) (m) Between-row width (aver. m)

Girth* at breast height (or highest point of trunk before first fork) of largest trees (n=6) average (m) * of largest trees

55

Condition of trees (Frequent / Occasional / Rare) :

Apple Pear Plum Other

- deadwood on live trees* - hollow trunks / branches - standing dead trees - fallen dead wood - rot sites / holes - sap runs - flaking bark * on large branches / parts of trunk only

Scrub cover over trees (estimate %) of total orchard : ……………….

Canopy : Open / Patchy / Closed

Epiphytes on trees (Dominant / Abundant / Frequent / Occasional / Rare / None) :

DAFORN Notes Mosses Liverworts Lichens Ivy Mistletoe Fungi

Tree management : Recent pruning / Tree planting / Tree felling

3. Fruit Identification :

Samples taken : Yes / No

Names of identified varieties :

Apples ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Pears ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Plums …………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Name of person determining fruit ID : ……………………………………………...

______

4. Ground Layer

Average height of main sward (cm) …………………

Tussocky / uniform appearance Anthills present ? Y / N

56

Composition:

(% ground Notes cover) Wildflowers / grasses Any species identified :

Nettles Brambles Thistles Docks Fungi in ground layer Any species identified :

Bare ground : - trampled bare ground under trees

-other locations

Ground Layer Management :

Extent (all or some of area) Cutting Spraying Grazing (type of livestock)

5. Other habitats :

Ponds : water still present ? Y/N Shading from south side ? ……………………..

Non-fruit trees within orchard (not on boundary) : Y/N Details ……………………..

Other structures / habitats ………………………………………………………………………

Notes : …………………………………………………………………………………………………

______

6. Boundaries

None

Hedgerows : Average height : ……… m Width at widest point ………. m

Base >50 cm above ground ? Y / N

57

Gaps in hedge ? (excl. gates) Y / N >10% of hedge ? Y/N Any gaps >5m ? Y/N

Woody species …………………………………………………………………………..

Any woodland plants in hedge bottom ? (eg bluebells, dog’s mercury)

Management : trimming / cutting Frequency …………………………………...

Tree line ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Walls

Ditches / streams

7. Surrounding habitats

Arable / woodland / grassland / housing / gardens / paddocks / other orchards / other …………………………………..

8. Wildlife species recorded incidentally

Birds ……………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Mammals ………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Invertebrates …………………………………………………………………………………………….

Other notable plants not recorded above …………………………………………………………….

Amphibians / Reptiles …………………………………………………………………………………..

9. Threats to orchard

Grubbing up / Livestock damage / Development / Abandonment / other

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

10. Photographs taken : Y/N

11. Would you recommend a Phase 3 survey for this orchard ? (Y/N) – give reason / which species group to be surveyed.

Thank you for your help. Please return completed forms to Val Perrin, 13 Pettitts Lane, Dry Drayton, Cambs CB23 8BT Tel 01954 780467 email : [email protected]

58

Appendix 2 : Phase 2 site visit list and survey status

Phase 1 no. / Location Phase 2 survey status other no.

C0003 Wisbech St Mary (Garner’s) completed C0017 Colne, Greenlands completed C0019 Earith, near Meadow Close external survey only C0024 Bluntisham, St Helen’s playing field completed C0027 Somersham, Pidley Hill (B1089) completed C0028 Somersham, Pidley Hill completed C0038 Wisbech, Garden Lane, Barratt’s Bridge not surveyed (being cleared) C0040 Wisbech, South Brink completed C0043 Wisbech, 9 Redmoor Lane completed C0072 Leverington, Edelweiss completed C0074 Leverington, Woodcraft Equine not surveyed, mostly grubbed up C0083 Gorefield, Wolf Lane completed C0084 Gorefield (Haddon) external survey only C0089 Gorefield (Bunting) external survey only C0092 Wisbech St Mary, Haddon’s Fruit Farm completed C0096 Wisbech St Mary, Trafford Farm completed C0096a Wisbech St Mary, Trafford Farm (field line) completed C0099 Wisbech St Mary, Mandalay completed C0101 / C0102 Wisbech St Mary, Rummers Lane data from EN survey C0107 Wisbech St Mary, Brook Cottage, New Drove completed C0114 Elm, Dairy Crest east completed C0116 Elm (Barnes) completed C0123 Elm (B. Freeman) completed C0132 Elm (B. Freeman) completed C0145 Colne, near ruined church external survey only C0146 Colne not surveyed (grubbed out) C0147 Colne, Long Close Farm, Colne Road completed C0149 Colne, Pound Land Orchard completed C0149a Colne, Pound Land Orchard completed C0151 Colne, Earith Road (Pound Land Orchard) completed C0152 Colne not surveyed (overgrown / impenetrable) C0161 Colne, LRC Nurseries completed C0161a Colne, rear of LRC Nurseries completed C0171 Haddenham, Aldreth Road completed C0176 Bluntisham, Heath Fruit Farm completed C0185 Cottenham, Oakington Road completed C0190 Cottenham, Millfield / Orchard View completed C0199 Histon, Gun’s Lane completed C0200 Histon, Moor Drove (Barrow Hill) completed C0202 Impington, Clay Close Lane, Milton Road completed C0240 Over completed C0241 Harston Community Orchard completed C0248 Haslingfield, Barton Road completed C0250 Barton completed C0256 Over, beside footpath to Overcote completed C0259 Over, Hitherford completed C0261 Over, Sandpit Pond Farm completed C0263 Dry Drayton, 13 Pettitts Lane completed C0265 Childerley completed C0281 Swavesey, Baker’s Orchard (north) completed

59

Phase 1 no. / Location Phase 2 survey status other no.

C0282 Swavesey, Baker’s Orchard (south) completed C0284a Fenstanton, Mount Farm completed C0284b Fenstanton, Mount Farm completed C0289 Bluntisham, Station Road completed C0293 Rampton, Ashley Farm Orchard completed C0297 Rampton, Markey Orchard completed C0300 Great Chishill completed C0303 Melbourn, Bury Lane Fruit Farm completed C0307 Meldreth, Cam Valley Orchard (apple) completed C0307a Meldreth, Cam Valley Orchard (pear) completed C0316 Melbourn, White House Farm completed C0316a Melbourn, White House Farm 2 completed C0327 Meldreth, Meldreth Road completed C0329 Meldreth, Bury End Farm completed C0336 Coton completed C0338 Cambridge, Newnham completed C0339 Girton College Old Orchard completed C0343 Eltisley, Orchard Farm completed

X1 Cambridge, University Farm completed X2 Oakington, behind garden centre completed X3 Cottenham, Franklin’s old orchard completed X4 Overcote, adj Riverside, Chain Road, Over completed X5 Somersham, Lawn Orchard completed X6 Bluntisham, Heath Farm completed X7 Bluntisham, behind Higham Farm completed X8 Bluntisham, Heath Road (opp ADAS completed Composting) X9 Bluntisham, water towers completed X10 Bluntisham, J Mayhew (1) completed X11 Bluntisham, J Mayhew (2) completed X12 Bluntisham, Pingrees Farm Shop completed X13 Steeple Morden, Woodland Grange completed X14 Fulbourn reserve orchard completed X15 Orwell, Chapel Orchard completed X16 Great Shelford, Foxhill completed X17 Haddenham, Aldreth Road (B.Prime) completed X18 Meldreth, Manor School completed X19 Willingham, Iram Farm, Cow Lane completed

Totals completed 78 external survey only 4 not surveyed 4 other survey 1

60

Appendix 3 : Potential Phase 3 survey sites identified from Phase 2

Taxa Site no. Site Phase 3 Notes completed

Bryophytes C0003 Wisbech St Mary, The Broad  C0043 Wisbech, 9 Redmoor Lane  C0089 Gorefield, Buntings  C0092 Leverington, Haddon’s Fruit Fm  - Leverington, Popple Drove  not in Ph.2 C0099 Wisbech St Mary, Mandalay  C0101/2 Wisbech St Mary, Rummers La  EN survey (3) C0107 Wisbech St Mary, Brook Cott.  C0114 Elm, Dairy Crest east  - Elm, Begdale Rd  not in Ph.2 C0116 Elm, Cranwell Lodge  C0123 Elm (N. of bypass)  C0132 Elm (S. of bypass)  C0171 Haddenham, Aldreth Rd  C0176 Bluntisham, Heath Fruit Farm  C0200* Histon, Moor Drove C0265 Childerley  C0281 Swavesey, Baker’s north  C0293 Rampton, Ashley Farm orchard  X3 Cottenham, Franklin’s old orch.  X4 Overcote, Riverside, Chain La  X19 Willingham, Iram Farm, Cow La

Lichens C0101/2 Wisbech St Mary, Rummers La  EN survey (3) C0293 Rampton, Ashley Farm orchard X4 Overcote, Riverside, Chain La  X16 Great Shelford, Foxhill  X19 (?) Willingham, Iram Farm, Cow La

Flora C0176 Bluntisham, Heath Fruit Farm  HFFS survey C0240 (?) Over C0241 Harston Community Orchard C0248 Haslingfield, Barton Rd C0336 Coton X13 Steeple Morden, Woodland Gra  X15 (?) Orwell, Chapel orchard

Fungi C0101/2 Wisbech St Mary, Rummers La  EN survey (3) C0107 Wisbech St Mary, Brook Cott. C0200* Histon, Moor Drove C0241 Harston Community Orchard 1 RDB sp. C0261 (?) Over, Sandpit Pond Farm C0338 Newnham, Cambridge

General invertebrates C0200* Histon, Moor Drove C0241 Harston Community Orchard C0248 Haslingfield, Barton Rd C0261 Over, Sandpit Pond Farm C0263 Dry Drayton, 13 Pettitts La  ongoing C0265 Childerley

61

Appendix 3 : Potential Phase 3 survey sites identified from Phase 2 (contd.)

Taxa Site no. Site Phase 3 Notes completed General invertebrates C0336 Coton  (contd.) C0339 (?) Girton College old orchard X3 (?) Cottenham, Franklin’s old orch. X6 (?) Bluntisham, Heath Farm X8 Bluntisham, Heath Rd X13 Steeple Morden, Woodland Gra X14 (?) Fulbourn reserve (CWT) X15 Orwell, Chapel orchard X16 Great Shelford, Foxhill X19 (?) Willingham, Iram Farm, Cow La

Saproxylic invertebrates C0101/2 Wisbech St Mary, Rummers La  EN survey (3) C0107 Wisbech St Mary, Brook Cott. C0116 Elm, Cranwell Lodge C0171 Haddenham, Aldreth Rd C0176 Bluntisham, Heath Fruit Farm  HFFS survey C0190 (?) Cottenham, Millfield C0200* Histon, Moor Drove C0240 Over C0265 Childerley

Butterflies C0240 Over  C0265 Childerley C0336 Coton  X13 Steeple Morden, Woodland Gra 

Moths C0200* Histon, Moor Drove C0240 (?) Over C0241 Harston Community Orchard  2 surveys 01/08 C0250 (?) Barton C0263 Dry Drayton, 13 Pettitts La  ongoing C0265 Childerley C0300 (?) Great Chishill C0338 Newnham, Cambridge C0339 (?) Girton College old orchard X4 (?) Overcote, Riverside, Chain La X13 Steeple Morden, Woodland Gra

Birds C0027 Somersham, Pidley Hill  C0040 Wisbech, South Brink C0092 Wisbech St Mary  C0101/2 Wisbech St Mary, Rummers La  C0132 Elm C0149 Colne, Pound Land  C0171 Haddenham, Aldreth Rd  C0176 Bluntisham, Heath Fruit Farm  C0200* Histon, Moor Drove C0241 Harston Community Orchard 

62

Appendix 3 : Potential Phase 3 survey sites identified from Phase 2 (contd.)

Taxa Site no. Site Phase 3 Notes completed Birds (contd.) C0250 Barton  C0261 Over, Sandpit Pond Farm  C0300 Great Chishill  C0336 Coton  C0338 Newnham, Cambridge X2 Oakington, behind gdn centre  X5 Somersham, Lawn orchard  X6 Bluntisham, Heath Farm  X14 (?) Fulbourn reserve (CWT) X16 (?) Great Shelford, Foxhill X17 Haddenham, Aldreth Road  X19 Willingham, Iram Farm, Cow La

Small mammals C0101/2 Wisbech St Mary, Rummers La C0265 Childerley C0300 Great Chishill C0338 Newnham, Cambridge X4 (?) Overcote, Riverside, Chain La bats X15 (?) Orwell, Chapel orchard bats X17 Haddenham, Aldreth Road bats X19 Willingham, Iram Farm, Cow La + bats

(general) C0147 Colne, Long Close Fm, Colne Rd C0149 / a Colne, Pound Land orchard C0297 Rampton, Markey orchard X7 Bluntisham, adj. Higham Farm

Fruit varieties X5 Somersham, Lawn orchard () ‘lost’ var apple Jolly Miller discovered *site access needs to be improved

63

Appendix 4 : List of surveyors

Marilyn Abdulla Monica Askay Fabiola Blum Josie Cosgrove Roger and Alice Few Denise Ginsburg Bridget Halford Louise Hartshorn Sue Hogarth Bob Lever Susannah O’Hanlon Julia Pace Val Perrin Paul Read Iain Smith James Stevens Robin Stevenson Liz Sutton Philip Turon Jackie & Mark Ullyett Catherine Weightman

64

Appendix 5 : Example of digitised orchard boundaries round Wisbech St Mary, Cambridgeshire

© UK Perspectives: Licence Number UKP2005/2 (2010)

65