Securing Biodiversity in Breckland - European Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

enhanced payment rates. Under the Breckland ESA, all the major heathland areas have been fenced,grazed and managed (Perkin and Norden 2007).However, at some key sites such as Lakenheath Warren, the eventual restoration of grazing onlyoccurred after a period without grazing that spanned many decades. During this time densegrassland, bracken, scrub and woodland cover dominated, with resulting effects on soil conditions.Grazing, at least by livestock, is still absent from some heathland SSSIs, including Barnham CrossCommon, Maidscross Hill and, perhaps unsurprisingly, Thetford Golf Course.Heathland restoration has been further helped by initiatives such as English Nature’s Tomorrow’sHeathland Heritage programme (2000-2005, with support from the Heritage Lottery Fund, HLF). Asignificant project was the creation of 300ha of predominantly grass-heath within Thetford Forest, aproject which continues now as the Brecks Heaths Project, a partnership of NWT, FC and NE.Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s own HLF-funded project, Securing the Future, supported habitat restorationon the Trust’s heathland and wetland nature reserves in Breckland.However, the period of vegetation succession that most sites experienced prior to the restorationof grazing regimes had important consequences, as follows: In respect of local populations of species requiring open conditions or bare ground, it is notclear what has been lost during the period when heaths were unmanaged and developedclosed vegetation. It is not clear how readily scarce invertebrates have been able to re-colonise sites followingthe restoration of management. Accumulation of organic matter into upper layers of soil may have persistent and longlastingeffects on nutrient availability, vegetation composition, plant communities, rates ofsuccession and the rapidity with which vegetation and grass mats recover and closefollowing minor disturbance.The importance of physical disturbance to grass-heath species was recognised by ecologists such asAlex Watt. At a small number of SSSIs, soil disturbance was initiated in 1960 following myxomatosis(Dolman and Sutherland 1992), but primarily to provide nesting opportunities for stone curlew, andalso as firebreaks, rather than as part of a wider understanding of ecological management. Afterthe recovery of rabbit populations at Weeting and Thetford Heaths, for instance, rotovationtreatments were discontinued, and the existence of these managed plots was largely forgotten.Examination of the vegetation developed on these previously rotovated plots in the late 1980s,combined with monitoring cultivation treatments in a replicated blocked experiment, confirmedthe importance of physical disturbance to maintaining the open, lichen-rich conditions on whichmany characteristic species depend (Dolman and Sutherland 1991; 1992; 1994). Subsequentconservation management at some key sites has included practices such as rotovation and turfstripping. However, across most sites, the area of physical disturbance treatment has remainedminimal, with sheep grazing (and occasionally cattle or ponies) considered the key tool forconservation.Internationally important habitats within Breckland have been designated with the Breckland SAC(Special Area of Conservation; see Conservation Resource section). Designation in 2000 of theBreckland SPA (Special Protection Area; see Conservation Resource section) for populations ofbreeding stone curlew Burhinus oedicnemus, woodlark Lullula arborea and nightjar Caprimulguseuropaeus coincided with the designation of the Breckland Farmland SSSI and the Breckland Forest22
SSSI. The Breckland Forest SSSI citation also notes important vascular plant and invertebrateassemblages.Conservation success includes the reversal of decline in the Breckland SPA population of stonecurlew with a doubling of the Breckland population and the BAP species target, to contribute 125breeding pairs by 2000 and 180 by 2010, was met and surpassed ahead of schedule with 230 pairsin 2009 (Tim Cowan pers. comm.).However, this has largely been achieved by labour intensive intervention on arable land, includingnest location and protection through effective liaison with farmers and land managers. This is notsustainable in the long term and restoration of suitable conditions across semi-natural grass-heathsto support a larger proportion of the population, together with initiatives to increase the area ofsafe nesting habitat on arable land, is a high priority by both the RSPB and Natural England.The technical challenges of the large scale restoration and management of Breckland’s wetlands(especially pingo sites) are great, but within the last 15 years new techniques have facilitatedextensive restoration works at Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s Thompson Common. Similar work has alsorecently been undertaken at Cranberry Rough, Hockham, clearing carr to re-establish fen alongsidewet woodland, with the introduction of an extensive grazing regime encompassing this andadjacent pingos. Pingo restoration work has also been undertaken on the STANTA and on FouldenCommon, and an increasing number of pingo sites (both SSSI and County Wildlife Sites) are nowbeing managed under Environmental Stewardship. Under the Breckland ESA scheme over 2000 haof river valley grassland and associated wetland habitats have been managed under sympatheticmanagement regimes, and a further 320 ha re-created from arable land. Some of this has onlymodest value for nature conservation (with the landscape value of these grasslands sometimes themain rationale), but opportunities exist under Environmental Stewardship to enhance and extendthis (with increased payments and improved targeting), with benefits for wetland plants,invertebrates and birds.The extinct pool frog Rana lessonae (a Breckland specialist, extinct in the UK since the 1990s) hasbeen reintroduced to one pingo site. Early indications to date are that this has been successful,forming a self-sustaining population without need for reinforcement.Current concerns for Breckland’s BiodiversityDespite conservation successes, there are major concerns.In developing the Breckland Natural Area profile, Stephen Rothera produced the mostcomprehensive collation and synthesis to date of information on the species present withinBreckland (Rothera 1989). Although the numbers of RDB, BAP and Breckland speciality speciesassociated with each habitat were given, and examples listed, the numbers identified can now beseen to be incomplete and out-dated following revision of the BAP species lists in 2007. The NaturalArea profile did not aim to provide guidance on the ecological requirements or conservationmanagement of priority species. The need remains, so that evidence based prescriptions can beformulated and delivered.23
Page 1 and 2: Securing Biodiversityin BrecklandGu
Page 3 and 4: Commissioning GroupNeil Featherston
Page 5 and 6: Wind-blown sand guild .............
Page 7 and 8: milder winters and increased winter
Page 9 and 10: Creating broad ruderal and disturbe
Page 11 and 12: Introduction“Few of the lowland d
Page 13 and 14: Inland DunesThe 1km wide dune and b
Page 15 and 16: Following the Black Death of the mi
Page 17 and 18: The area of grass-heath declined by
Page 19 and 20: PingosPingos are ground water fed p
Page 21: Breckland Conservation and the Need
Page 25 and 26: The Breckland Biodiversity Audit ha
Page 27 and 28: The Breckland bio-geographic region
Page 29 and 30: polygons of alternating calcareous
Page 31 and 32: quality calcareous fen communities
Page 33 and 34: Figure 2. The extent of Breckland,
Page 35 and 36: Table 3. Grass-heath vegetation in
Page 37 and 38: The Conservation Resource: Designat
Page 39 and 40: All other SSSIs are less than 600 h
Page 41 and 42: GrasslandHeathWoodlandWetlandFlowin
Page 43 and 44: Calcicolous grasslandsShingle, stra
Page 45 and 46: Figure 4. Location of designated si
Page 47 and 48: Figure 6. Location of Plantlife’s
Page 49 and 50: Figure 7. Locations of stations in
Page 51 and 52: Scheme for Stilt & Stalk Flies, Dra
Page 53 and 54: Table 6. Rare vascular plant specie
Page 55 and 56: Recommendation BTO be commissioned
Page 57 and 58: Table 7. Species for which records
Page 59 and 60: Table 8. Descriptions of Red Data B
Page 61 and 62: If the sub-species was designated b
Page 63 and 64: Collating and Synthesising Species
Page 65 and 66: Table 11. Published, documentary an
Page 67 and 68: Baron de Worms, C.G.M. (1953) Colle
Page 69 and 70: Guild AnalysisA number of habitat a
Page 71 and 72: The specific questions for the work
Page 73 and 74:
Findings of the Breckland Biodivers
Page 75 and 76:
Recording Effort and CoverageThere
Page 77 and 78:
Butterfly Conservation (Suffolk) 17
Page 79 and 80:
Norfolk Biodiversity InformationSer
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 11. Number of taxonomic grou
Page 83 and 84:
difference is partly attributable t
Page 85 and 86:
There were Breckland specialist spe
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 13. Proportion of Breckland
Page 89 and 90:
Distribution of Breckland Conservat
Page 91 and 92:
Figure 15. Number of Breckland cons
Page 93 and 94:
Evidence of Climatic Change: Long-T
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 17. Total seasonal precipita
Page 97 and 98:
Biodiversity Implications of the Ch
Page 99 and 100:
Ariel depositions to agricultural s
Page 101 and 102:
the status of Deschampsia flexuosa.
Page 103 and 104:
The relative effects of ploughing,
Page 105 and 106:
Trends in Species Status: Extinctio
Page 107 and 108:
HymenopteraHymenopteraHymenopteraCo
Page 109 and 110:
In addition to the loss of rare lic
Page 111 and 112:
edstraw Galium parisiense (Tansley
Page 113 and 114:
The relative extent of lichen rich
Page 115 and 116:
The Feasibility and Usefulness of t
Page 117 and 118:
Across patch arrangementLandscape c
Page 119 and 120:
Across patcharrangementJuxtapositio
Page 121 and 122:
Delivery of Multiple Species by Int
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Mechanical disturbance to create br
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
estricted to road verges, with the
Page 131 and 132:
131
Page 133 and 134:
Records of species from this guild
Page 135 and 136:
© Jeremy Earlywww.natureconservati
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Open with sward mosaics guildChryso
Page 141 and 142:
Grazing without physical disturbanc
Page 143 and 144:
Deadwood in an open-woodland ecoton
Page 145 and 146:
Specific Requirement in a Variety o
Page 147 and 148:
Management to Sustain Dry Terrestri
Page 149 and 150:
Heather should rather be considered
Page 151 and 152:
GrazingrequirementsLightly sheep-gr
Page 153 and 154:
a mosaic of overlapping ploughed, a
Page 155 and 156:
Wind-blown sandThere is great uncer
Page 157 and 158:
IntensityProcess Technique Immediat
Page 159 and 160:
Complex Sward MosaicsComplex sward
Page 161 and 162:
Management for Assemblages of Light
Page 163 and 164:
Management for Species of Physicall
Page 165 and 166:
Key Recommendations for Cultivated
Page 167 and 168:
Shallow cultivation is preferable t
Page 169 and 170:
Maidscross Hill is largely overgrow
Page 171 and 172:
Ecological Requirements of Wetland
Page 173 and 174:
numbers of conservation priority sp
Page 175 and 176:
Recommendation Requirements of wetl
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Restored pingo complexAt Great Hock
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
the difficulties of achieving this
Page 185 and 186:
Strategic Challenges to Biodiversit
Page 187 and 188:
Table 22. Problems arising from poo
Page 189 and 190:
Recommendation: Natural England and
Page 191 and 192:
It is therefore vital to carefully
Page 193 and 194:
Creating networks for resilienceTo
Page 195 and 196:
More ambitious possibilities that c
Page 197 and 198:
Figure 34. Example of a potential c
Page 199 and 200:
Connectivity networks© Neal Armour
Page 201 and 202:
and consider whether these repeated
Page 203 and 204:
Ensure that scrub removal, ploughin
Page 205 and 206:
ReferencesADAS. (1997) Biological M
Page 207 and 208:
Haes, E. C. M. & Harding, P. T. (19
Page 209 and 210:
Sastre, B.(2003). Ground spider com
show all

Securing Biodiversity in Breckland - European Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?