Fieldfare November 2008
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Shield Bugs and \Toodland Composition in Epping Forest
Field Studies6 (1985),253-268 SHIELD BUGS AND \TOODLAND COMPOSITION IN EPPING FOREST PAUL H. DULSTICH* EppingForest Conseraation Centre ABsrRAcr The distribution of five speciesof shield bug was studied with different host plant species,structure, condition and age in Epping Forest, Essex. Stands of beech, birch and oak-hornbeam, as well as scrubland gorse and hawthorn, were sampled, each tree being characterisedb1 a variet.vofparameters including bole circumference, pollard- ing and defoliation class. Correlations between shield bug species and host plant character were expressedthtough chi-squared analysesof presencelabsencedata for the samples.Resuits suggesta high degreeofhost specificity amongst the phytophage species studied and probably a preference for earlv successionalplant stages.Prei- erential utilisation of mature and non-defoliated hosts is aiso apparenr. The resuits are discussedin terms ofthe requirements ofthe bugs and the nutritional vaiue ofthe host. Ir is conciuded that nitrogen availability within and between host plant species is likeiy to be highly influential in deterrnining the diet and distribution of shielcj bugs, and indeed other selecrive-feedingheteroptera. INrRonucrroN Epprxc Fonssr comprisesof 2430hectares of woodland and grasslandwith small pockets of scrub and heathland, extending from the Wanstead Flats in the London Borough of Redbridge, north for approximarely l9 krn, just beyond Epping in Essex.The principal trce speciesare treech(Fagus sylz;atica),birch (Betula pendula and B. pubescens))common oak (Qtte r ctrs r obur) and hornbeam (C arp inus be tulu s). Pollen data indicate the late survival of the lir-:.e(Tilia) until about AD600 as the dominant tree species)then giving way to the familiar woodland associationsseen today. -
Glasgow Necropolis (November 2010) Group Formal Name
Glasgow Necropolis (November 2010) Group Formal Name Common Name Earliest RecordLatest Record annelid Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 Common Earthworm 10/05/2007 10/05/2007 bird Accipiter nisus (Linnaeus, 1758) Sparrowhawk 29/07/2010 29/07/2010 bird Aegithalos caudatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Long-tailed Tit 18/03/2009 18/03/2009 bird Carduelis carduelis (Linnaeus, 1758) Goldfinch 05/04/2008 26/05/2010 bird Carduelis chloris (Linnaeus, 1758) Greenfinch 05/04/2008 09/06/2010 bird Erithacus rubecula (Linnaeus, 1758) Robin 05/04/2008 05/04/2008 bird Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus, 1758 Kestrel 09/06/2010 09/06/2010 bird Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus, 1758 Chaffinch 05/04/2008 26/05/2010 bird Parus major Linnaeus, 1758 Great Tit 05/04/2008 05/04/2008 bird Pica pica (Linnaeus, 1758) Magpie 11/05/2005 11/05/2005 bird Prunella modularis (Linnaeus, 1758) Dunnock 26/05/2010 26/05/2010 bird Sturnus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 Starling 11/05/2005 11/05/2005 bird Troglodytes troglodytes (Linnaeus, 1758) Wren 05/04/2008 09/06/2010 bird Turdus merula Linnaeus, 1758 Blackbird 11/05/2005 26/05/2010 bird Turdus viscivorus Linnaeus, 1758 Mistle Thrush 09/05/2006 29/07/2010 centipede Geophilus flavus (De Geer, 1778) 10/05/2007 10/05/2007 centipede Lithobius (Lithobius) forficatus (Linnaeus, 1758) the common centipede 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 centipede Stigmatogaster subterranea (Shaw, 1789) 10/05/2007 10/05/2007 clubmoss Lycopodium clavatum L. Stag's-horn Clubmoss 25/08/1985 1988 conifer Chamaecyparis pisifera (Siebold & Zucc.) Siebold & Zucc. Sawara Cypress July 2006 July 2006 fern Asplenium ruta-muraria L. -
Landscape Character Assessment of Rutland (2003)
RUTLAND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT BY DAVID TYLDESLEY AND ASSOCIATES Sherwood House 144 Annesley Road Hucknall Nottingham NG15 7DD Tel 0115 968 0092 Fax 0115 968 0344 Doc. Ref. 1452rpt Issue: 02 Date: 31st May 2003 Contents 1. Purpose of this Report 1 2. Introduction to Landscape Character Assessment 2 3. Landscape Character Types in Rutland 5 4. The Landscape of High Rutland 7 Leighfield Forest 8 Ridges and Valleys 9 Eyebrook Valley 10 Chater Valley 11 5. The Landscape of the Vale of Catmose 15 6. The Landscape of the Rutland Water Basin 18 7. The Landscape of the Rutland Plateau 20 Cottesmore Plateau 21 Clay Woodlands 23 Gwash Valley 24 Ketton Plateau 25 8. The Landscape of the Welland Valley 28 Middle Valley West 28 Middle Valley East 29 Figures and Maps Figure 1 Landscape Character Types and Sub-Areas Figure 2 Key to 1/25,000 Maps Maps 1 - 10 Detailed 1/25,000 maps showing boundaries of Landscape Character Types and Sub-Areas Photographs Sheet 1 High Rutland and Welland Valley Sheet 2 Vale of Catmose and Rutland Water Basin Sheet 3 Rutland Plateau References 1 Leicestershire County Council, 1976, County Landscape Appraisal 2 Leicestershire County Council, 1995 published 2001, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Landscape and Woodland Strategy 3 Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002, Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland 4 Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute, 2002, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Spons 5 Countryside Agency and English Nature, 1997, The Character of England: Landscape Wildlife and Natural Features and Countryside Agency, 1999, Countryside Character Volume 4: East Midlands 6 Department of Environment, 1997 Planning Policy Guidance 7 The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development RUTLAND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT DTA 2003 1. -
Barrowden and Wakerley Pre-Submission Version
Barrowden and Wakerley Pre-Submission Version Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 Contents The Pre-Submission Dra Plan.....................................................................................3 Introduc0on....................................................................................................................................3 What happens once the consulta0on closes?................................................................................3 How the Neighbourhood Plan is organised ..................................................................3 1.0 Introduc on...............................................................................................3 What is a Neighbourhood Plan?.....................................................................................................4 Background to the Neighbourhood Plan........................................................................................5 The Plan Area and the Plan period.................................................................................................6 2.0 The Planning Context .................................................................................6 3.0 Portrait of the Area....................................................................................7 Loca0on and landscape..................................................................................................................7 Popula0on ......................................................................................................................................8 -
Areas Designated As 'Rural' for Right to Buy Purposes
Areas designated as 'Rural' for right to buy purposes Region District Designated areas Date designated East Rutland the parishes of Ashwell, Ayston, Barleythorpe, Barrow, 17 March Midlands Barrowden, Beaumont Chase, Belton, Bisbrooke, Braunston, 2004 Brooke, Burley, Caldecott, Clipsham, Cottesmore, Edith SI 2004/418 Weston, Egleton, Empingham, Essendine, Exton, Glaston, Great Casterton, Greetham, Gunthorpe, Hambelton, Horn, Ketton, Langham, Leighfield, Little Casterton, Lyddington, Lyndon, Manton, Market Overton, Martinsthorpe, Morcott, Normanton, North Luffenham, Pickworth, Pilton, Preston, Ridlington, Ryhall, Seaton, South Luffenham, Stoke Dry, Stretton, Teigh, Thistleton, Thorpe by Water, Tickencote, Tinwell, Tixover, Wardley, Whissendine, Whitwell, Wing. East of North Norfolk the whole district, with the exception of the parishes of 15 February England Cromer, Fakenham, Holt, North Walsham and Sheringham 1982 SI 1982/21 East of Kings Lynn and the parishes of Anmer, Bagthorpe with Barmer, Barton 17 March England West Norfolk Bendish, Barwick, Bawsey, Bircham, Boughton, Brancaster, 2004 Burnham Market, Burnham Norton, Burnham Overy, SI 2004/418 Burnham Thorpe, Castle Acre, Castle Rising, Choseley, Clenchwarton, Congham, Crimplesham, Denver, Docking, Downham West, East Rudham, East Walton, East Winch, Emneth, Feltwell, Fincham, Flitcham cum Appleton, Fordham, Fring, Gayton, Great Massingham, Grimston, Harpley, Hilgay, Hillington, Hockwold-Cum-Wilton, Holme- Next-The-Sea, Houghton, Ingoldisthorpe, Leziate, Little Massingham, Marham, Marshland -
Northamptonshire Wakerley Great Wood
Fetler Yell North Roe Shetland Islands Muckle Roe Brae Voe Mainland Foula Lerwick Sumburgh Fair Isle Westray Sanday Rousay Stronsay Mainland Orkney Islands Kirkwall Shapinsay Scarpa Flow Hoy South Ronaldsay Cape Island of Stroma Wrath Scrabster John O'Groats Castletown Durness Thurso Port of Ness Melvich Borgh Bettyhill Cellar Watten Noss Head Head Tongue Wick Forsinard Gallan Isle of Lewis Head Port nan Giuran Stornoway Latheron Unapool Altnaharra Kinbrace WESTERN ISLES Lochinver Scarp Helmsdale Hushinish Point Airidh a Bhruaich Lairg Taransay Tarbert Shiant Islands Greenstone Point Scalpay Ullapool Bonar Bridge Harris Rudha Reidh Pabbay Dornoch Tarbat Berneray Dundonnell Ness Port nan Long Tain Gairloch Lossiemouth North Uist Invergordon Lochmaddy Alness Cullen Cromarty Macdu Fraserburgh Monach Islands Ban Uig Rona Elgin Buckie Baleshare Kinlochewe Garve Dingwall Achnasheen Forres Benbecula Ronay Nairn Baile Mhanaich Torridon MORAY Keith Dunvegan Turri Peterhead Portree Inverness Aberlour Geirinis Raasay Lochcarron Huntly Dutown Rudha Stromeferry Ellon Hallagro Kyle of Cannich Lochalsh Drumnadrochit Rhynie Oldmeldrum South Uist Isle of Skye Dornie Kyleakin HIGHLAND Grantown-on- Spey Inverurie Lochboisdale Invermoriston Alford Shiel Bridge Aviemore Canna Airor ABERDEENSHIRE Aberdeen Barra Ardvasar Inverie Invergarry Kingussie Heaval Castlebay Rum Newtonmore Vatersay Mallaig Banchory Laggan Braemar Ballater Sandray Rosinish Eigg Arisaig Glennnan Dalwhinnie Stonehaven Mingulay Spean Bridge Berneray Muck Fort William SCOTLAND ANGUS Onich -
Heritage 211 Q3 2013
No. 211 1 July - 30 September 2013 Editorial Panel: Helen Ikin, Steve Woodward, Jim Graham. Hon. Sec. Judy Johnson, 27 Sandalwood Road, Loughborough, Leics. LE11 3PR (01509-214711) IVY Hedera helix - A PLANT FOR ALL SEASONS Ivy, our only evergreen native climbing plant, is well known to butterfly enthusiasts as being the second generation food plant of the Holly Blue larvae but I suspect far fewer appreciate its importance to large numbers of moth species such as The Chestnut, Dark Chestnut, Dark Sword-grass, Tawny Pinion, Green-brindled Crescent, The Satellite and Red-line Quaker. It is also one of two main larval food plants of an attractive little geometer moth, the Yellow-barred Brindle, whose other main food plant is the Holly - like the Holly Blue! Ivy also provides important winter hibernating cover for The Brimstone, The Peacock and numerous other insect species. It gives protection to hibernating insects and roosting birds in the worst of the winter's weather when the countryside becomes a wind-swept, hostile place to all living organisms and when decent shelter can make all the difference between life and death to creatures fighting to stay alive and doing their best to avoid being blown into oblivion! Like many another conservation-minded person, I guess, I went through a phase in my life when I thought that Ivy growing on trees was a bad thing and should therefore be prevented by cutting IN THIS EDITION CLASSIFIED RECORDS Ÿ Mammals Page 2 Ÿ Birds Page 3 Ÿ Reptiles and Amphibians Page 7 Ÿ Fish Page 8 Ÿ Butterflies Page 9 Ivy © Stephen Woodward Ÿ Moths Page 13 through the stems - how dangerous a little Ÿ Beetles Page 15 knowledge can be! With the passage of time and more knowledge, I now realise that Ivy is Ÿ Other Insects Page 18 ecologically one of our most important native plant Ÿ species and often more important than some of Plants and Ferns Page 22 the tree species up which it climbs for support. -
April 2021 Newsletter
OR ST Y Rutland I & H R E L C A Local O C R O D L S History & D O N C A I L E T Record T U Y Society R No 1/21 rutlandhistory.org April 2021 In this Newsletter . A side effect of lockdown has been the opportunity to fulfil Lockdown, Zoom, and Village Walks for All 1 an ambition to update and publish Rutland village walks on St George’s North Luffenham – Debbie Frearson 2 our website. The annual visit to one of Rutland's villages is an Parish Boundary Project Update – Tony Martin 3 important event in the Society's calendar and it is always an Thomas Cook Update 4 occasion of discovery for those taking part. Since 1997, a Another Rutland Ploughing Trophy 5 significant component of these visits has been the leaflet Obituary: David Joseph Carlin 6 guided historical walk round the village. These walks are now Review: William Cecil's Survey of Stamford 1595 8 gradually being updated and risk assessed prior to inclusion in Emma and Mildred Ward of Coles Lodge – Sheila Sleath 9 the new Village Walks section of our website for all to enjoy. The Occupants of Coles Lodge, Leighfield – Sheila Sleath 13 (http://www.rutlandhistory.org/villagewalks.htm) Early Railways in Rutland – Paul Holmes 16 The walks are in A4 PDF (Portable Document Format) for Arthur William Cant DCM – Robert Ovens & Sheila Sleath 18 desktop and laptop computers, but they are also being Obituary: Paul Sharpling 20 gradually adapted by our webmaster for viewing on mobile Rutland Agricultural Society Show Medals 20 devices (smartphones, iPads etc.). -
Invertebrate Survey Report
Ashfield Land Management and Gazeley GLP Northampton s.à.r.l Annex K: Invertebrate Survey Report Rail Central 855950 FEBRUARY 2018 Commissioned by RSK Environment Ltd Abbey Park Humber Road Coventry CV3 4AQ RAIL CENTRAL SITE, NORTHAMPTON INVERTEBRATE SURVEY REPORT Report number BS/3015/16 October 2016 Prepared by Colin Plant Associates (UK) Consultant Entomologists 14 West Road Bishops Stortford Hertfordshire CM23 3QP 01279-507697 [email protected] Rail Central Site, Northamptonshire 2 Colin Plant Associates (UK) Invertebrate Survey Report Consultant Entomologists October 2016 Report number BS/3015/16 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Colin Plant Associates (UK) are pleased to credit the input of the following personnel: Field work for this project has been undertaken by Marcel Ashby Tristan Bantock Colin W. Plant Identification of samples has been undertaken by Marcel Ashby Tristan Bantock Peter Chandler Norman Heal Edward Milner Colin W. Plant Rail Central Site, Northamptonshire 3 Colin Plant Associates (UK) Invertebrate Survey Report Consultant Entomologists October 2016 Report number BS/3015/16 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introductory comments 1.1.1 Colin Plant Associates (UK) were commissioned on 12th July 2016 by RSK Ltd to undertake an assessment of terrestrial invertebrate ecology at the Rail Central Site in Northamptonshire (“the site”). 1.1.2 Three sampling sessions were undertaken. An initial walkover survey of the whole site was performed on 21st July 2016; on this date, all areas of the site were seen and most were visited, with the aim of defining the areas likely to be most representative of the whole site. 1.1.3 Invertebrate species sampling was then undertaken on the next day, 22nd July, on 7th August and finally on 18th September 2016. -
Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036
Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 Aerial view of Wakerley and Barrowden from the South Referendum Version October 2019 www.bandwneighbourhoodplan.org.uk This Plan is dedicated to Stephen Last who made a major contribution to its formation The Submission Version of the Plan .................................................................................................... 3 ......................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 What happens once the consultation closes? .................................................................. 3 How the Neighbourhood Plan is organised ............................................................ 3 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................... 3 What is a Neighbourhood Plan? ....................................................................................... 4 Background to the Neighbourhood Plan .......................................................................... 5 The Plan Area and the Plan period ................................................................................... 6 2.0 The Planning Context ......................................................................... 6 3.0 Portrait of the Area ............................................................................ -
Sheldon Field DRAFT Management Plan
SShheellddoonn FFiieelldd CCrrooppwweellll BBuuttlleerr DDRRAAFFTT MMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPllaann 22001133 –– 22001177 Sheldon Field Acknowledgements Rushcliffe Borough Council and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust would like to thank the many organisations and individuals who were involved in the development of this management plan For further information about this site and it’s management please contact: The Sheldon Field Management Committee Page 2 of 24 Sheldon Field CONTENTS: PART 1: SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 4 1.1 Location............................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Map Coverage ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Size...................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Ownership/Tenure............................................................................................... 4 1.5 Local Planning Authority .................................................................................... 4 1.6 Soil and geology .............................................................................................… 4 1.7 Aspect, topography and altitude.......................................................................... 5 1.8 Statutory Designations…..................................................................................... 5 -
Dear Sir/Madam, Thank You for the Opportunity to Comment on the Barrowden and Wakerley Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Plan Consultation
From: Patience Stewart [email protected] Subject: Barrowden and Wakerley Pre-submission Neighbourhood Plan Date: 18 May 2018 at 10:25 To: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Barrowden and Wakerley Pre-submission Neighbourhood Plan consultation. The following comments are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water. Anglian Water is sewerage undertaker for Barrowden Parish and the water and sewerage undertaker for Wakereley Parish. The views of Severn Trent Water who are responsible for water services in Barrowden Parish should also be sought on the Neighbourhood Plan. I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this response. Policy BW8: Surface water flooding Reference is made to developments incorporating Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) wherever practicable and that SuDS should be incorporated into the design of new developments. Anglian Water support the requirement for applicants to include the provision of SuDS so as not to increase flood risk and to reduce flood risk where possible. The use of SuDS would help to reduce the risk of surface water and sewer flooding. Policy BW8 could be strengthened making it clear that SuDs will be the preferred method of surface water disposal unless shown to be technically unfeasible. It is therefore suggested Policy BW8 be amended as follows: ‘Wherever practicable, proposals should incorporate sustainable drainage systems to manage surface water drainage unless it can be demonstrated that they are not financially or technically viable.’ Sewage (page 36) Reference is made to comments previously made by Anglian Water relating to the capacity of the existing foul sewerage network and Barrowden Water Recycling Centre.