Draft Project Record Project 461 Species Management in Aquatic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
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. -
Download Als PDF
Dieses PDF wird von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft bayerischer Entomologen e.V.für den privaten bzw. wissenschaftlichen Gebrauch zur Verfügung gestellt. Die kommerzielle Nutzung oder die Bereitstellung in einer öffentlichen Bibliothek oder auf einer website ist nicht gestattet. Beiträge zur bayerischen Entomofaunistik 8:4987, Bamberg (2006), ISSN 1430-015X Regionalisierte und kommentierte Checkliste der Wasserkäfer Bayerns (Stand 2005) (Insecta: Coleoptera aquatica) von Ullrich Heckes, Monika Hess, Günter Hofmann, Heinz Bußler, André Skale, Jürgen Schmidl & Franz Hebauer Summary: In addition to the recently published revision of the red list of threatened and endangered animals we present a regionalized checklist of the waterbeetles of Bavaria. Moreover we add comments on selected rare, newly recorded or rediscov- ered species and remarkable records and point out nomenclatural alterations. Zusammenfassung: Im Nachgang zur Neufassung der Roten Listen Bayerns wird eine nach Naturraumgruppen regionalisierte Checkliste der Wasserkäfer für den Bezugsraum vorgestellt. Ausgewählte seltene Arten, Erst- und Wiederfunde, bemerkenswerte Nachweise und nomenklatorische Neuerungen werden kommentiert bzw. dokumentiert. Einleitung Im Zuge der Vorarbeiten zur Neufassung der Roten Liste gefährdeter Wasserkäfer Bayerns (Hebauer et al., [2004]) waren in größerem Umfang aktuelle faunistische Daten zusammenzutragen und Altmeldungen gegenüber zu stellen. Die Autoren kamen überein, diese Arbeiten auch nach dem Erscheinen der Roten Liste weiter zu führen und zur Aufstellung einer Checkliste zu nutzen. Die hiermit vorgelegte kommentierte Liste versteht sich als Aktualisierung und Fortschreibung des Katalogs der bayerischen Wasserkäfer (Hebauer, 1994a, Stand August 1992), der ersten und bislang einzigen Zusammenstellung dieser Art für das Bundesland. Wesentliche Neuerung ist eine nach naturräumlichen Regionen differenzierte Darstellung mit grober artbezogener Bilanzierung der Anzahl bekannter Fundorte. -
Dragonfly News 66
Dragonfly News 66 The Magazine of the British Dragonfly Society Autumn 2014 www.british-dragonflies.org.uk Meet the new BDS Chairman, How many Willow Emeralds are David Chelmick ovipositing? Dragonfly hunting....in Sweden? Andy Holt’s unique larval portraits How tatty can a dragonfly be and still fly? Dragonfly News 66 The Magazine of the British Dragonfly Society Published twice a year, in April and October, Dragonfly News covers all aspects of the British Dragonfly Society’s field, recording, monitoring, research, conservation and social activities, as well as information from the wider dragonfly, natural history and conservation world. The emphasis is on dragonflies recorded in the UK. The British Dragonfly Society aims to promote and encourage the study, conservation and understanding of dragonflies and their natural habitats, especially in the UK, and to raise public awareness of dragonflies. Dragonfly News is edited & designed by: Trustees & Officers of the BDS Mark Tyrrell, 8 Warwick Close, Raunds, Chairman: David Chelmick Northants., NN9 6JH Tel. Vice-Chairman: Vacant e-mail: Secretary: Henry Curry, 23 Bowker Way, Whittlesey, Peterborough, PE7 1PY. Tel. Deadlines for inclusion of copy: Spring 31 January Treasurer: Brian Walker, 49 Roman Way, Wantage, Autumn 31 July Oxfordshire, OX12 9YF. Tel. Advertising Rates: Trustees: David Goddard, Stuart Irons, Mick Parfitt. £15 for small-ad (text only); £40 for quarter- Journal Editor: Peter Mill, 8 Cookridge Grove, LEEDS, page; £60 for half-page; £100 for full-page. LS16 7LH. Shop Manager: Lynn Curry, 23 Bowker Way, Whittlesey, Peterborough, PE7 1PY Tel. © British Dragonfly Society 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any Dragonfly Conservation Group (DCG) form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, Convenor: Dave Smallshire, 8, Twindle Beer, Chudleigh, Newton recording or otherwise, without the permission of the British Abbot, Devon, TQ13 0JP. -
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 . -
Biological Recording and Information Generic Biodiversity Action Plan
Biological Recording and Information Generic Biodiversity Action Plan • Better informed policy & decision making • Avoidance of unnecessary damage to biodiversity • Effective targeting of scarce resources to best use • Compliance with statutory reporting requirements • Monitoring of programme effectiveness • Monitoring of short & mid term habitat & species trends • Important component of education & awareness raising Up to date accessible records are an essential starting point for nature conservation and the implementation of the biodiversity action plan process. Without knowledge about the location and quantity of different habitats and species, both in the past and present, declines cannot be detected and conservation management cannot be focused to achieve effective targeting of scarce resources to best use . In addition, monitoring is vital in order to determine whether conservation management is working, demonstrating whether it is maximising biodiversity or reversing any previous population declines, thus avoiding unnecessary damage to biodiversity and allowing discrete monitoring of programme effectiveness . It is essential not only to give users access to the data that already exist but also to improve the quantity, quality and relevance of biodiversity data. Information needs to be up-to-date and trustworthy, as complete as possible, accurate and rapidly accessible. Where required it must be interpreted and evaluated so that users can judge what significance should be attached to it. This provides us with a focus point for the collation and management of data relating to the wildlife of Worcestershire. The pooling of data from a number of sources provides a greater overall resource for the County of high quality, well presented, and clearly understandable data relating to, for example, species occurrences and distributions for a given area. -
Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites
Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites Selection Guidelines VERSION 14 December 2020 BEDFORDSHIRE AND LUTON LOCAL SITES PARTNERSHIP 1 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 2. HISTORY OF THE CWS SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................... 7 3. CURRENT CWS SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................................................ 8 4. Nature Conservation Review CRITERIA (modified version) ............................................................................. 10 5. GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY FACTORS ......................................................................................................... 14 6 SITE SELECTION THRESHOLDS........................................................................................................................ 15 BOUNDARIES (all CWS) ............................................................................................................................................ 15 WOODLAND, TREES and HEDGES ........................................................................................................................ 15 TRADITIONAL ORCHARDS AND FRUIT TREES ................................................................................................. 19 ARABLE FIELD MARGINS........................................................................................................................................ -
Annales Zoologici Fennici 39: 109-123
ANN. ZOOL. FENNICI Vol. 39 • Dispersing diving beetles in different landscapes 109 Ann. Zool. Fennici 39: 109–123 ISSN 0003-455X Helsinki 14 June 2002 © Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing Board 2002 Dispersing diving beetles (Dytiscidae) in agricultural and urban landscapes in south-eastern Sweden Elisabeth Lundkvist*, Jan Landin & Fredrik Karlsson Department of Biology, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden (*e-mail: [email protected]) Received 6 April 2001, accepted 15 October 2001 Lundkvist, E., Landin, J. & Karlsson, F. 2002: Dispersing diving beetles (Dytiscidae) in agricultural and urban landscapes in south-eastern Sweden. — Ann. Zool. Fennici 39: 109–123. Flying dytiscids were trapped in an agricultural landscape with wetlands in different successional stages and in two urban landscapes with young wetlands. We compared the faunas in air and in water. Hydroporus and Agabus were the most frequently trapped genera in air. Most species were trapped near water in the agricultural landscape; species characteristic of later successional stages were common in air and dominated in water. In the urban landscapes, species were mainly trapped far from water and species known to colonise new waters were common in air and in the youngest waters. Overall, females and immature adults were more common in fl ight catches during April–July than during August–October. Our results indicate that urbanisation would result in a less diverse fauna, but may lead to an assemblage dominated by species that are infrequent in agricultural landscapes. To obtain a rich wetland insect fauna, a wide range of wetland types is required at the landscape scale. Introduction both in space and time (Bilton 1994). -
Site Condition Monitoring of Dragonflies on Loch A' Mhuilinn SSSI
Scottish Natural Heritage Research Report No. 1086 Site Condition Monitoring of dragonflies on Loch a’ Mhuilinn SSSI 2016 RESEARCH REPORT Research Report No. 1086 Site Condition Monitoring of dragonflies on Loch a’ Mhuilinn SSSI 2016 For further information on this report please contact: Sally Ward Scottish Natural Heritage The Links Golspie Business Park GOLSPIE KW10 6UB Telephone: 01463 701698 E-mail: [email protected] This report should be quoted as: Willet, J. 2020a. Site Condition Monitoring of dragonflies on Loch a’ Mhuilinn 2016. Scottish Natural Heritage Research Report No. 1086. This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage. © Scottish Natural Heritage 2020. RESEARCH REPORT Summary Site Condition Monitoring of dragonflies on Loch a’ Mhuilinn SSSI 2016 Research Report No. 1086 Project No: 113952 Contractor: Jonathan Willet Year of publication: 2020 Keywords Loch a' Mhuilinn; Odonata; azure hawker; Aeshna caerulea; SSSI; Site Condition Monitoring; dragonfly; damselfly. Background Loch a’ Mhuilinn Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies on the north-west coast of Sutherland, 5 km south of Scourie. The site is of national importance for its woodland, lichens and the assemblage of dragonfly species. The aim of the survey was to monitor and provide field data required by SNH to report on the condition of the dragonfly assemblage feature at Loch a’ Mhuilinn SSSI. Main findings The dragonfly assemblage on Loch a’ Mhuilinn SSSI was in ‘favourable maintained’ condition with no identified threats to it. -
Distribution and Ecology of Agabus Striolatus (Gyllenhal) in the Netherlands (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae)*)
ENTOMOLOGISCHE BERICHTEN, DEEL 43, 1. VIL 1983 105 Distribution and ecology of Agabus striolatus (Gyllenhal) in the Netherlands (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae)*) by J. G. M. CUPPEN & H. P. J. J. GUPPEN ABSTRACT. — Remarks are made concerning the phenology and habitats of this rare spe¬ cies. Introduction Recently Van Nieukerken (1981) published a paper on the distribution and ecology of four stream dwelling species of the genus Agabus, viz. A. guttatus (Paykull), A. biguttatus (Olivier), A. paludosus (Fabricius) and A. didymus (Olivier), in the Netherlands. In an addition to this the present paper contains a distribution map of Agabus striolatus and a discussion of the ecolo¬ gy of the species. Agabus striolatus is easily recognized, even in the field, by its small size (7-7.5 mm) and the parallel sides of pronotum and elytra. Under low magnification the elongate narrow reticula¬ tion of the pronotum and elytra is very distinct. This species can only be confused with the very common Agabus bipustulatus (Linnaeus), but the latter is much larger (9-9.5 mm). There are only three published records of A. striolatus in the Netherlands (Everts, 1903, 1922). Since A. striolatus is also rare elsewhere in Europe (Guignot, 1947; Zaitsev, 1953; Schaeflein, 1971) the present paper fills a gap in our knowledge of this water beetle. The data presented in this paper are mainly based on our own collections made during 1974-1981. The distribution map has been complemented with data from other collections (see table 1). Distribution. — A. striolatus has been found in the north of Europe, Poland and Russia (Zaitsev, 1953), Germany (Schaeflein, 1971; Hebauer 1975), England (Balfour-Browne, 1950; Foster, 1977), Belgium (Zimmermann, 1934) and France (Guignot, 1947). -
Various Stuff!
Various Stuff! Peter Thurman [email protected] Some Notes On: • The Tenacity of Trees • Some Benefits of Trees • Trees and Culture • Some Threats to Trees + Some Solutions • Biosecurity • Biodiversity • Tree Planting & Aftercare • Some Trees to Avoid • New trees to Consider? The Tenacity of Trees Coping & Helping with Soil Erosion Moving Concrete St Jose, USA Chinese privet (Ligustrum lucidum) Clipped hard every 4 years “Planting the Space” Orvieto, Italy Proliferating root growth Tetrameles nudiflora at Ta Prohm Temple in Cambodia Hong Kong Chinese banyan Ficus microcarpa Looking for oxygen and trying to get rid of carbon dioxide but seeking moisture in the paving joints - Hong Kong Tolerance of Very Low Ground and Air Temperatures [here = Bavaria] Long Living/Resilience Ancient Olive [Olea europaea] tree in Montenegro High wind / exposure Trees adapt, evolve and survive – Phenotypic and Genotypic adaptation “Base of a Wine Glass root systems” ...but not always... Benefits Why do we plant trees? Aesthetics Their attractive visual appearance – Decoration and Ornament Oxygen! The Air that we Breathe Architecture and Landscape Design Framing, Screening, Shelter, Unifying, Softening, Space Division, Green Mass and Infrastructure Engineering SUDS, Canopy Cover, Climate and Pollution Amelioration, Soil Stabilisation, Erosion Control Cultural/Historical/Educational Linking the past with the present and the future, Social Traditions Wildlife Biodiversity and Flora, Fauna & Habitat Conservation Well Being and Recreation Contributing to the Mental and Physical Health & Happiness of humans - Biophilia Economic Added-value to properties and districts, Energy conservation, Bio-Fuels, Timber and many other Bi-products Aesthetics Marks Hall Gardens and Arboretum, Essex Do people notice plant form more than flowers? “Imagine if trees gave off Wi-Fi signals… We would be planting so many. -
Os Nomes Galegos Dos Insectos 2020 2ª Ed
Os nomes galegos dos insectos 2020 2ª ed. Citación recomendada / Recommended citation: A Chave (20202): Os nomes galegos dos insectos. Xinzo de Limia (Ourense): A Chave. https://www.achave.ga /wp!content/up oads/achave_osnomesga egosdos"insectos"2020.pd# Fotografía: abella (Apis mellifera ). Autor: Jordi Bas. $sta o%ra est& su'eita a unha licenza Creative Commons de uso a%erto( con reco)ecemento da autor*a e sen o%ra derivada nin usos comerciais. +esumo da licenza: https://creativecommons.org/ icences/%,!nc-nd/-.0/deed.g . 1 Notas introdutorias O que cont n este documento Na primeira edición deste recurso léxico (2018) fornecéronse denominacións para as especies máis coñecidas de insectos galegos (e) ou europeos, e tamén para algúns insectos exóticos (mostrados en ám itos divulgativos polo seu interese iolóxico, agr"cola, sil!"cola, médico ou industrial, ou por seren moi comúns noutras áreas xeográficas)# Nesta segunda edición (2020) incorpórase o logo da $%a!e ao deseño do documento, corr"xese algunha gralla, reescr" ense as notas introdutorias e engádense algunhas especies e algún nome galego máis# &n total, ac%éganse nomes galegos para 89( especies de insectos# No planeta téñense descrito aproximadamente un millón de especies, e moitas están a"nda por descubrir# Na )en"nsula * érica %a itan preto de +0#000 insectos diferentes# Os nomes das ol oretas non se inclúen neste recurso léxico da $%a!e, foron o xecto doutro tra allo e preséntanse noutro documento da $%a!e dedicado exclusivamente ás ol oretas, a!ela"ñas e trazas . Os nomes galegos -
Managing Deadwood in Forests and Woodlands
Practice Guide Managing deadwood in forests and woodlands Practice Guide Managing deadwood in forests and woodlands Jonathan Humphrey and Sallie Bailey Forestry Commission: Edinburgh © Crown Copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or write to the Information Policy Team at The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail [email protected]. This publication is also available on our website at: www.forestry.gov.uk/publications First published by the Forestry Commission in 2012. ISBN 978-0-85538-857-7 Jonathan Humphrey and Sallie Bailey (2012). Managing deadwood in forests and woodlands. Forestry Commission Practice Guide. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. i–iv + 1–24 pp. Keywords: biodiversity; deadwood; environment; forestry; sustainable forest management. FCPG020/FC-GB(ECD)/ALDR-2K/MAY12 Enquiries relating to this publication should be addressed to: Forestry Commission Silvan House 231 Corstorphine Road Edinburgh EH12 7AT 0131 334 0303 [email protected] In Northern Ireland, to: Forest Service Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Dundonald House Upper Newtownards Road Ballymiscaw Belfast BT4 3SB 02890 524480 [email protected] The Forestry Commission will consider all requests to make the content of publications available in alternative formats. Please direct requests to the Forestry Commission Diversity Team at the above address, or by email at [email protected] or by phone on 0131 314 6575. Acknowledgements Thanks are due to the following contributors: Fred Currie (retired Forestry Commission England); Jill Butler (Woodland Trust); Keith Kirby (Natural England); Iain MacGowan (Scottish Natural Heritage).