Tranche 2 Action Plans

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Tranche 2 Action Plans For more information about the UK Biodiversity Action Plan visit http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-5155 UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans Terrestrial and Freshwater Species and Habitats THE RT HON JOHN PRESCOTT MP THE RT HON PETER MANDELSON MP DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE NORTHERN IRELAND ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS SARAH BOYACK MSP CHRISTINE GWYTHER AM MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND ASSEMBLY SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AGRICULTURE, AND THE THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE RURAL DEVELOPMENT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES Dear Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Minister and Assembly Secretary, BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman of the United Kingdom Biodiversity Group (UKBG) about the latest group of biodiversity action plans which UKBG have completed and published in the present volume. This is the sixth and final volume in the Tranche 2 Action Plan series and its publication concludes the preparation of plans begun in 1995. The volume has an “uplands” theme and contains 25 species and 4 habitat action plans. Also included are 53 species statements. The species cover a range of taxonomic groups. Technical introductions to these groups have already been published in Volumes III and IV. The statements cover: species where monitoring is required to confirm whether there is any significant decline in their populations; species, not recorded for over 10 years, where search is the only current action possible and for which action plans will be prepared if new populations are discovered; and species where action will be considered as part of the delivery of other relevant habitat and species action plans. As with previous plans, these action plans have been produced through the hard work of Government departments and agencies, voluntary conservation groups, land managers and academic institutions to set challenging but achievable targets to conserve and enhance these species and habitats. As in earlier volumes, the new species action plans are accompanied by a list of lead partners (often a Non-Government Organisation) who will take the lead in their implementation, supported by a contact point (always a Government agency or department). The new species action plans are accompanied by a table showing their indicative costings and the habitat plans include indicative costs, so that those charged with implementation are clear about the scale of the financial consequences. The volume contains a summary of the costings process for all published species action plans. The methodology for costing the habitat action plans was published in Volume II. Publication of this final volume brings to a close the UKBG’s work in preparing plans. Our work is now focusing on implementation of the published plans and here the individual country groups for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have an increasing important role. Work to assess the level of implementation and the extent to which targets are being achieved is underway. The findings from this work will form part of a Millennium Biodiversity Report which the UKBG will present to the Government and the devolved administrations by the end of next year. On behalf of UKBG, I commend to you and your ministerial colleagues the action plans set out in this volume. SOPHIA LAMBERT Contents Page 1. Introduction ..............................................................5 2. Priority Species Action Plans and Species Statements ...............................8 Vertebrates Action Plans ............................................9 Statements ............................................15 Coleoptera Action Plans ...........................................16 Statements ............................................30 Hymenoptera Action Plans ...........................................50 Statements ............................................53 Lepidoptera Action Plans ...........................................56 Statements ............................................69 Other invertebrates Action Plans ...........................................74 Statements ............................................82 Fungus Statement .............................................86 Lichens Action Plans ...........................................88 Statements ............................................95 Bryophytes Action Plans ...........................................96 Statements ...........................................101 Vascular Plant Statement ..................................................119 Priority Habitat Action Plans ...............................................121 Lowland raised bog .....................................122 Blanket bog ..........................................130 Upland calcareous grassland ..............................137 Upland heathland ......................................141 Annexes 1. List of abbreviations and acronyms ...........................................148 2. Action plan costings ......................................................149 3. List of species and habitats, with Contact Points, Lead Partners and Lead Agencies/Departments ...............................................150 1. Introduction 1.1 Each of the species and habitat action plans published in this and previous volumes in the series have cost estimates attached. These estimates provide Government and the partners involved in the implementation of the plans with an idea of the resource commitment entailed in their delivery. In the case of species, these costs are summarised as a table of additional average annual costs (see Annex 2). More detailed information on the cost estimates will be available in a series of reports to be published by English Nature in its Research Report series, available Enquiry Service. There will be separate reports for habitats and species, together with a summary report habitats. Habitat costings 1.2 The methodology for the costing of the habitat action plans was described in Volume II Terrestrial and freshwater habitats.The total figure for each action plan is built up from estimates for each of the specific actions contained therein. Each of the actions was costed by using a list of generic costs derived from a range of data, and expert opinion and assumptions on how the actions would be undertaken (how much area requires restoration, how much manpower is needed, etc). The cost estimates are therefore indicative only, and actual costs will be determined by the accuracy of the assumptions made, which in turn depends on unforeseen circumstances and new information arising during the course of plan implementation. 1.3 The costing of the species action plans followed a similar ‘bottom-up’ approach of deriving costs for individual actions within the plan, and its methodology is outlined below. Species costings 1.4 Cost estimates have been produced by gathering a wide range of cost data, for example, the costs of habitat maintenance, experimental reintroductions, advising landowners, surveying populations, genetic research and publicity. The data sought focussed on the actions outlined in the SAPs. This data was then used to construct a table of standard estimates that could be used for costing particular elements of each action plan. 1.5 Data were obtained from specialists within a range of organisations. These included English Nature, Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, RSPB, Plantlife, the Forestry Commision, university departments and various other individuals with relevant expertise. The authors and editors of the SAPs were also closely consulted throughout the process. 1.6 Agri-environmental grant data was obtained from the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), the Welsh Office Agricultural Department (WOAD), Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department (SOAEFD) and Forestry Commission (FC) for schemes including Countryside Stewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Arable Stewardship, Woodland Grant Scheme, Tir Cymen, and the Countryside Premium Scheme. 1.7 The cost estimates are based on the methodology first used for action plans published in the Biodiversity: the UK Steering Group Report (1995). It used the standard estimates described above as a basis for calculations to arrive at a figure for each SAP. These calculations took into account factors such as the number of sites requiring habitat management, the number 5 of land managers who needed to be advised on a species, and the number of years that monitoring was required at a site. Example calculation The standard estimate for survey work was £180 per day plus £50% overheads and report writing (a total of £270 per day). It was estimated that action 5.5.1 of the river shingle beetles action plan (‘Continue to undertake surveys to determine the UK status of these species’) would take 10 days per year over the 10 year life of the plan. The cost estimate for this survey action was therefore £2.7K per year. 1.8 The following principles and assumptions should be noted. The cost estimates: ! are indicative only, based on the experience of past or current projects, and the estimations of various specialists; ! are for the UK as a whole; ! are additional to both current and projected expenditure under existing programmes (works planned in advance of the development of an action plan), which was estimated as part of the costing process; ! are for the public and private sector combined. No attempt has been made to apportion
Recommended publications
  • QQR 7 Information Pack
    7th Quinquennial Review of Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Information Pack (version 2.21) 14 May 2021 1 Version 2.2: Four reptiles and two seals removed from the EPS list (Annex 1); one EPS amphibian and two EPS reptiles that are all Endangered removed from Annex 2 – these species were included in Version 2 and/or 2.1 in error. See Annex 1 and Annex 2 for further information. 1. Introduction Every five years, the country nature conservation bodies (Natural England, Natural Resources Wales and NatureScot), working jointly through the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), review Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981. The review will provide recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to Ministers for the Environment in the Scottish Government and Welsh Government for changes to these schedules2. This is known as the Quinquennial Review (QQR). As part of the QQR, stakeholders are provided with the opportunity to propose changes to the species on the schedules. This Information Pack has been produced for the 7th QQR (QQR 7). It is important to note that this QQR differs from previous ones. The Information Pack explains the new selection criteria, provides a timetable, and explains the process to be used by stakeholders. Contact details of the QQR Inter-agency Group who are managing QQR 7, are listed in Section 5. In addition, the Information Pack provides details of how to complete the online survey through which stakeholders propose new species for inclusion on, or removal of existing species from Schedules 5 and 8, or propose a change to how species are protected on the schedules.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing for Species: Integrating the Needs of England’S Priority Species Into Habitat Management
    Natural England Research Report NERR024 Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes www.naturalengland.org.uk Natural England Research Report NERR024 Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes Webb, J.R., Drewitt, A.L. and Measures, G.H. Natural England Published on 15 January 2010 The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. You may reproduce as many individual copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with Natural England, 1 East Parade, Sheffield, S1 2ET ISSN 1754-1956 © Copyright Natural England 2010 Project details This report results from work undertaken by the Evidence Team, Natural England. A summary of the findings covered by this report, as well as Natural England's views on this research, can be found within Natural England Research Information Note RIN024 – Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. This report should be cited as: WEBB, J.R., DREWITT, A.L., & MEASURES, G.H., 2009. Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes. Natural England Research Reports, Number 024. Project manager Jon Webb Natural England Northminster House Peterborough PE1 1UA Tel: 0300 0605264 Fax: 0300 0603888 [email protected] Contractor Natural England 1 East Parade Sheffield S1 2ET Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat i management.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada
    Newsletter of the Biological Survey of Canada Vol. 40(1) Summer 2021 The Newsletter of the BSC is published twice a year by the In this issue Biological Survey of Canada, an incorporated not-for-profit From the editor’s desk............2 group devoted to promoting biodiversity science in Canada. Membership..........................3 President’s report...................4 BSC Facebook & Twitter...........5 Reminder: 2021 AGM Contributing to the BSC The Annual General Meeting will be held on June 23, 2021 Newsletter............................5 Reminder: 2021 AGM..............6 Request for specimens: ........6 Feature Articles: Student Corner 1. City Nature Challenge Bioblitz Shawn Abraham: New Student 2021-The view from 53.5 °N, Liaison for the BSC..........................7 by Greg Pohl......................14 Mayflies (mainlyHexagenia sp., Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae): an 2. Arthropod Survey at Fort Ellice, MB important food source for adult by Robert E. Wrigley & colleagues walleye in NW Ontario lakes, by A. ................................................18 Ricker-Held & D.Beresford................8 Project Updates New book on Staphylinids published Student Corner by J. Klimaszewski & colleagues......11 New Student Liaison: Assessment of Chironomidae (Dip- Shawn Abraham .............................7 tera) of Far Northern Ontario by A. Namayandeh & D. Beresford.......11 Mayflies (mainlyHexagenia sp., Ephemerop- New Project tera: Ephemeridae): an important food source Help GloWorm document the distribu- for adult walleye in NW Ontario lakes, tion & status of native earthworms in by A. Ricker-Held & D.Beresford................8 Canada, by H.Proctor & colleagues...12 Feature Articles 1. City Nature Challenge Bioblitz Tales from the Field: Take me to the River, by Todd Lawton ............................26 2021-The view from 53.5 °N, by Greg Pohl..............................14 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Insecta Zeitschrift Für Entomologie Und Naturschutz
    Insecta Zeitschrift für Entomologie und Naturschutz Heft 9/2004 Insecta Bundesfachausschuss Entomologie Zeitschrift für Entomologie und Naturschutz Heft 9/2004 Impressum © 2005 NABU – Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V. Herausgeber: NABU-Bundesfachausschuss Entomologie Schriftleiter: Dr. JÜRGEN DECKERT Museum für Naturkunde der Humbolt-Universität zu Berlin Institut für Systematische Zoologie Invalidenstraße 43 10115 Berlin E-Mail: [email protected] Redaktion: Dr. JÜRGEN DECKERT, Berlin Dr. REINHARD GAEDIKE, Eberswalde JOACHIM SCHULZE, Berlin Verlag: NABU Postanschrift: NABU, 53223 Bonn Telefon: 0228.40 36-0 Telefax: 0228.40 36-200 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.NABU.de Titelbild: Die Kastanienminiermotte Cameraria ohridella (Foto: J. DECKERT) siehe Beitrag ab Seite 9. Gesamtherstellung: Satz- und Druckprojekte TEXTART Verlag, ERIK PIECK, Postfach 42 03 11, 42403 Solingen; Wolfsfeld 12, 42659 Solingen, Telefon 0212.43343 E-Mail: [email protected] Insecta erscheint in etwa jährlichen Abständen ISSN 1431-9721 Insecta, Heft 9, 2004 Inhalt Vorwort . .5 SCHULZE, W. „Nachbar Natur – Insekten im Siedlungsbereich des Menschen“ Workshop des BFA Entomologie in Greifswald (11.-13. April 2003) . .7 HOFFMANN, H.-J. Insekten als Neozoen in der Stadt . .9 FLÜGEL, H.-J. Bienen in der Großstadt . .21 SPRICK, P. Zum vermeintlichen Nutzen von Insektenkillerlampen . .27 MARTSCHEI, T. Wanzen (Heteroptera) als Indikatoren des Lebensraumtyps Trockenheide in unterschiedlichen Altersphasen am Beispiel der „Retzower Heide“ (Brandenburg) . .35 MARTSCHEI, T., Checkliste der bis jetzt bekannten Wanzenarten H. D. ENGELMANN Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns . .49 DECKERT, J. Zum Vorkommen von Oxycareninae (Heteroptera, Lygaeidae) in Berlin und Brandenburg . .67 LEHMANN, U. Die Bedeutung alter Funddaten für die aktuelle Naturschutzpraxis, insbesondere für das FFH-Monitoring .
    [Show full text]
  • England Biodiversity Indicators 2020
    4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance England Biodiversity Indicators 2020 This documents supports 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Technical background document Fiona Burns, Tom August, Mark Eaton, David Noble, Gary Powney, Nick Isaac, Daniel Hayhow For further information on 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance visit https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity-indicators 1 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Indicator 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Technical background document, 2020 NB this paper should be read together with 4b Status of UK Priority Species; distribution which presents a companion statistic based on time series on frequency of occurrence (distribution) of priority species. 1. Introduction The adjustments to the UK biodiversity indicators set as a result of the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (including the Aichi Targets) at the 10th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity mean there is a need to report progress against Aichi Target 12: Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained. Previously, the UK biodiversity indicator for threatened species used lead partner status assessments on the status of priority species from 3-yearly UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) reporting rounds. As a result of the devolution of biodiversity strategies to the UK's 4 nations, there is no longer reporting at the UK level of the status of species previously listed by the BAP process. This paper presents a robust indicator of the status of threatened species in the UK, with species identified as conservation priorities being taken as a proxy for threatened species.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a Norway Spruce Forest
    Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov Series II: Forestry • Wood Industry • Agricultural Food Engineering • Vol. 9 (58) No.1 - 2016 IMPACT OF CLEARCUTTING ON GROUND BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE) IN A NORWAY SPRUCE FOREST Jozef MACKO1 Abstract: The research was conducted in Veľká Fatra Mountains, Slovakia. Pitfall traps were installed in the forest and in the glade. Overall, 20 species of beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) were recorded. In the forest, 1532 individuals belonging to 13 species were recorded. Trechus pulpani had the highest abundance in the forest and represents almost half of all individuals. Paradoxically, on the glade, the numbers of species slightly increased, but their abundance was significantly lower. We recorded only 143 individuals belonging to 16 species. Of the forest species, only Carabus violaceus and Pterostichus unctulatus retained a dominant position, but their abundance has decreased by more than 70%. Key words: Carabidae, clear cut, seasonal dynamics. 1. Introduction ground layer from sunlight and, to some extent, from microclimatic alterations and Clear-cutting represents the method of changes in the bottom- and field-layer wood logging in which most of the wood is vegetation. However, the sheltering removed and taken away. Removing the efficiency depends on the number of trees wood causes the decline of microclimate retained, as indicated by the relationship conditions, significant damages of the between generalist Carabid and tree herbaceous cover, and also destructs the density [11]. Many of the environmental surface of soil in which the beetles live and factors are multifaceted and interlinked in hide [3]. The forest stands are defining the overall structural complexity characterized by a relatively high and of insect habitats [13], [18], [15].
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services in the Nene Valley Mapping Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services in the Nene Valley
    Mapping natural capital and ecosystem services in the Nene Valley Mapping Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services in the Nene Valley Mapping Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services in the Nene Valley Author: Dr Jim Rouquette Natural Capital Solutions & University of Northampton Contact details: Dr J.R. Rouquette Natural Capital Solutions Ltd www.naturalcapitalsolutions.co.uk [email protected] Tel: 07790 105375 Report prepared for: Nene Valley NIA Project Publication date: December 2016 Version: Final Recommended citation: Rouquette, J.R. (2016). Mapping Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services in the Nene Valley. Report for the Nene Valley NIA Project. Natural Capital Solutions. Cover image: Sunset over Irthlingborough Lakes and Meadows (John Abbott) Natural Capital Solutions Ltd i Mapping Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services in the Nene Valley Acknowledgements A large number of people contributed to this project. In particular I’d like to thank Stella Watts, Kat Harrold, Duncan McCollin, Janet Jackson and Jeff Ollerton, all from the University of Northampton. Jeff, in particular, oversaw and supported all of the work described in this report and chaired the steering group. Stella collated all of the biodiversity records described in Section 2.3 and gathered together many other data sets and GIS layers. Thanks to Nicholas Head and Kat Harrold who endured the task of manually mapping hedgerows in GIS, and to Gilles Jean-Louis who carried out preliminary work on hedgerow mapping and on the historic analysis (Chapter 3). Thanks also to Oliver Burke and Heather Proctor of the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire who were members of the steering group.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment Appendices Biodiversity Character
    BIODIVERSITY CHARACTER ASSESSMENT APPENDICES CONTENTS APPENDIX 1 Datasets used in the Northamptonshire Biodiversity Character Assessment ................................................................. 03 APPENDIX 2 Natural Areas in Northamptonshire .............................................................................................................................................. 04 Natural Area 44. Midlands Clay Pastures ....................................................................................................................................... 04 Natural Area 45. Rockingham Forest .............................................................................................................................................. 09 Natural Area 52. West Anglian Plain ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Natural Area 54. Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge .............................................................................................................................. 20 Natural Area 55. Cotswolds ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 APPENDIX 3 Site of Special Scientifi c Interest Summaries .............................................................................................................................. 26 APPENDIX 4 Wildlife Site Summaries ....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Carabids and Other Beneficial Arthropods in Cereal Crops and Permanent Grasslands and Influence of Field and Landscape Parameters D
    Carabids and other beneficial arthropods in cereal crops and permanent grasslands and influence of field and landscape parameters D. Massaloux To cite this version: D. Massaloux. Carabids and other beneficial arthropods in cereal crops and permanent grasslands and influence of field and landscape parameters. Biodiversity and Ecology. AgroParisTech, 2020. English. tel-02886480v2 HAL Id: tel-02886480 https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02886480v2 Submitted on 9 Dec 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. NNT : 2020 IAVF 0012 THESE DE DOCTORAT préparée à l’Institut des sciences et industries du vivant et de l’environnement (AgroParisTech) pour obtenir le grade de Docteur de l’Institut agronomique vétérinaire et forestier de France Spécialité : Écologie École doctorale n°581 Agriculture, alimentation, biologie, environnement et santé (ABIES) par Damien MASSALOUX Influence du paysage et de la parcelle sur les diversités de carabes et d’autres arthropodes en céréales et prairies permanentes Directeur de thèse : Alexander Wezel Co-encadrement de la thèse : Benoit Sarrazin Thèse présentée et soutenue à Lyon le 22 juin 2020 Composition du jury : M. Pierre-Henri Gouyon, Professeur, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle Rapporteur M.
    [Show full text]
  • Rote Liste Ka Fer Band 2 Landesnaturschutzgesetz
    Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein Die Käfer Schleswig-Holsteins Rote Liste Band 2 Herausgeber: Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (MLUR) Erarbeitung durch: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein Hamburger Chaussee 25 24220 Flintbek Tel.: 0 43 47 / 704-0 www.llur.schleswig-holstein.de Ansprechpartner: Arne Drews (Tel. 0 43 47 / 704-360) Autoren: Stephan Gürlich Roland Suikat Wolfgang Ziegler Titelfoto: Macroplea mutica (RL 1), Langklauen-Rohrblattkäfer, 7 mm, Familie Blattkäfer, Unterfamilie Schilfkäfer galt bereits als ausgestorben. Die Art konnte aber in neuerer Zeit in den Seegraswiesen der Orther Reede auf Fehmarn wieder nachgewiesen werden. Die Käferart vollzieht ihren gesamten Lebenszyklus vollständig submers und gehört gleichzeitig zu den ganz wenigen Insektenarten, die im Salzwasser leben können. Dieses einzige an der schleswig-hol- steinischen Ostseeküste bekannte Vorkommen ist in den dortigen Flachwasserzonen durch Wassersport gefährdet. (Foto: R. Suikat) Herstellung: Pirwitz Druck & Design, Kronshagen Dezember 2011 ISBN: 978-3-937937-54-0 Schriftenreihe: LLUR SH – Natur - RL 23 Band 2 von 3 Diese Broschüre wurde auf Recyclingpapier hergestellt. Diese Druckschrift wird im Rahmen der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der schleswig- holsteinischen Landesregierung heraus- gegeben. Sie darf weder von Parteien noch von Personen, die Wahlwerbung oder Wahlhilfe betreiben, im Wahl- kampf zum Zwecke der Wahlwerbung verwendet werden. Auch ohne zeit- lichen Bezug zu einer bevorstehenden Wahl darf die Druckschrift nicht in einer Weise verwendet werden, die als Partei- nahme der Landesregierung zu Gunsten einzelner Gruppen verstanden werden könnte. Den Parteien ist es gestattet, die Druckschrift zur Unterrichtung ihrer eigenen Mitglieder zu verwenden.
    [Show full text]
  • Research of the Biodiversity of Tovacov Lakes
    Research of the biodiversity of Tovacov lakes (Czech Republic) Main researcher: Jan Ševčík Research group: Vladislav Holec Ondřej Machač Jan Ševčík Bohumil Trávníček Filip Trnka March – September 2014 Abstract We performed biological surveys of different taxonomical groups of organisms in the area of Tovacov lakes. Many species were found: 554 plant species, 107 spider species, 27 dragonflies, 111 butterfly species, 282 beetle species, orthopterans 17 and 7 amphibian species. Especially humid and dry open habitats and coastal lake zones were inhabited by many rare species. These biotopes were found mainly at the places where mining residuals were deposited or at the places which were appropriately prepared for mining by removing the soil to the sandy gravel base (on conditions that the biotope was still in contact with water level and the biotope mosaic can be created at the slopes with low inclination and with different stages of ecological succession). Field study of biotope preferences of the individual species from different places created during mining was performed using phytosociological mapping and capture traps. Gained data were analyzed by using ordinate analyses (DCA, CCA). Results of these analyses were interpreted as follows: Technically recultivated sites are quickly getting species – homogenous. Sites created by ecological succession are species-richer during their development. Final ecological succession stage (forest) can be achieved in the same time during ecological succession as during technical recultivation. According to all our research results most biologically valuable places were selected. Appropriate management was suggested for these places in order to achieve not lowering of their biological diversity. To even improve their biological diversity some principles and particular procedures were formulated.
    [Show full text]
  • BD2111 SID 5 FINAL Aug 2010
    General enquiries on this form should be made to: Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team, Telephone No. 020 7238 1612 E-mail: [email protected] SID 5 Research Project Final Report Note In line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results Project identification of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The BD2111 SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is 1. Defra Project code designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded 2. Project title research in a format that is easily Trends, long term survival and ecological values of publishable through the Defra website. A hedgerow trees: development of populations models to SID 5 must be completed for all projects. inform strategy. This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as 3. Contractor Forest Research appropriate. organisation(s) ACCESS TO INFORMATION The information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the £ 51226 project. Defra may also disclose the 54. Total Defra project costs information to any outside organisation (agreed fixed price) acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its 5. Project: start date ................ 05 January 2009 behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with end date ................. 31 July 2009 exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
    [Show full text]