Potential for biodiversity delivery by welsh agri ...

Title: Potential For Biodiversity Delivery By Welsh Agri-Environment Schemes

POTENTIAL FOR BIODIVERSITY DELIVERY BY WELSH AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES

FINAL REPORT TO WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT

submitted April 21st 2008

Morris A.J., Smart J.1, Lamacraft D.2, Bialynicki-Birula, N., Luxton K-J.3, Haysom K., Rasey A.4, Williams C., Hobson R.5, Dines, T.6, Parry R.J.,

Wilberforce E.M.7

contact: [email protected]

1 RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL 2 RSPB North Wales Office, Maes y Ffynnon, Penrhosgarnedd, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DW 3 RSPB Wales HQ, Sutherland House, Castlebridge, Cowbridge Road East, Cardiff, CF11 9AB 4 Bat Conservation Trust, 15 Cloisters House, 8 Battersea Park Road, London, SW8 4BG 5 Butterfly Conservation, 10 Calvert Terrace, Swansea, SA1 6AR 6 Plantlife, c/o Countryside Council for Wales, Maes y Ffynnon, Ffordd Penrhos, Bangor, L57 2LQ 7 Wildlife Trust Wales, The Nature Centre, Fountain Road, Tondu, Bridgend, CF32 0EH


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 1

2 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 BACKGROUND TO DECLINES IN FARMLAND BIODIVERSITY .............................................................................. 6 2.2 BACKGROUND TO AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES (AES)................................................................................. 6

2.2.1 EU............................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Wales ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.3 THE ROLE OF AES IN REVERSING BIODIVERSITY DECLINES ............................................................................. 8 2.4 WELSH AUDIT OFFICE REPORT ON TIR GOFAL ................................................................................................ 9 2.5 THE IMPORTANCE OF AES MONITORING .......................................................................................................... 9 2.6 OUTLINE OF REVIEW OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 11

3 METHODS............................................................................................................................................................ 11 3.1 THE REVIEW CONSORTIUM: A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO AES EVALUATION............................................. 11 3.2 DATA ON FOCAL SPECIES ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.2.1 Reason for selection of focal species ..................................................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Mammals ................................................................................................................................................ 15 3.2.3 Birds ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.4 Key Areas for focal species.................................................................................................................... 18

3.3 DATA ON AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES ...................................................................................................... 19 3.3.1 Tir Cynnal............................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Organic Farming Scheme ...................................................................................................................... 21 3.3.3 Tir Gofal ................................................................................................................................................. 21

3.4 ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................................ 25 3.4.1 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions......................................................................................................... 25 3.4.2 GIS data on Tir Gofal agreements and prescriptions ........................................................................... 26 3.4.3 Merging AES and focal species datasets............................................................................................... 26 3.4.4 Data analysis method............................................................................................................................. 27

4 RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................................. 31 4.1 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF FOCAL SPECIES ............................................................................................... 31 4.2 ASSESSMENT OF TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING TO DELIVERY OF RESOURCES FOR FOCAL SPECIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 31

4.2.1 Overview – delivery across taxa............................................................................................................ 32 4.2.2 Plants...................................................................................................................................................... 34 4.2.3 Butterflies ............................................................................................................................................... 35 4.2.4 Mammals ................................................................................................................................................ 38 4.2.5 Birds ....................................................................................................................................................... 41

4.3 ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER UPTAKE OF TIR GOFAL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DELIVER RESOURCES FOR FOCAL SPECIES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 45

4.3.1 Overview – delivery across taxa............................................................................................................ 46 4.3.2 Plants...................................................................................................................................................... 46 4.3.3 Butterflies ............................................................................................................................................... 56 4.3.4 Mammals ................................................................................................................................................ 68 4.3.5 Birds ....................................................................................................................................................... 78

5 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................................ 91 5.1 TIR CYNNAL.................................................................................................................................................... 91 5.2 ORGANIC FARMING SCHEME .......................................................................................................................... 92 5.3 TIR GOFAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 92

5.3.1 Tir Gofal: key taxa or species-specific conclusions.............................................................................. 95 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................................... 97

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................. 98

7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 99

8 APPENDICES................................................................................................................................. 112 8.1 APPENDIX 1: PLANTS .................................................................................................................................... 112

8.1.1 Distribution, populations and key areas.............................................................................................. 112


8.1.2 Literature review of resource requirements of focal plant species..................................................... 117 8.1.3 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for focal plant species.................................................................. 122 8.1.4 Discussion of Tir Gofal delivery for focal plant species..................................................................... 125

8.2 APPENDIX 2: BUTTERFLIES........................................................................................................................... 128 8.2.1 Reason for selection of focal species ................................................................................................... 128 8.2.2 Distribution, populations and key areas.............................................................................................. 129 8.2.3 Literature review of resource requirements for focal butterfly species.............................................. 133 8.2.4 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for butterflies ............................................................................... 147 8.2.5 Discussion of Tir Gofal delivery for focal butterfly species ............................................................... 169

8.3 APPENDIX 3: MAMMALS............................................................................................................................... 172 8.3.1 Distribution, populations and key areas.............................................................................................. 172 8.3.2 Literature review of resource requirements for focal mammal species ............................................. 180 8.3.3 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for mammals ................................................................................ 190 8.3.4 Discussion of Tir Gofal delivery for focal mammal species ............................................................... 205

8.4 APPENDIX 4: BIRDS....................................................................................................................................... 215 8.4.1 Distribution, populations and key areas.............................................................................................. 215 8.4.2 Literature review of resource requirements of focal bird species ...................................................... 217 8.4.3 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for birds........................................................................................ 220 8.4.4 Discussion of Tir Gofal delivery for focal bird species ...................................................................... 224

8.5 APPENDIX 5. SPECIES NAMES........................................................................................................................ 227 8.5.1 Names and threat status of focal species for this review .................................................................... 227 8.5.2 Names of species mentioned in the text. .............................................................................................. 228

8.6 APPENDIX 6. TIR GOFAL: NAMES AND NUMBER CODES FOR PRESCRIPTIONS............................................... 229 8.7 APPENDIX 7. TECHNICAL DETAILS: MERGING SCHEME AND FOCAL SPECIES DATASETS .............................. 232


Table listing: TABLE 1 THE EXTENT OF LAND AND NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES IN WALES. ............. 7 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF FOCAL SPECIES FOR THIS REVIEW. ............................................................................................... 9 TABLE 3 TAXA CHOSEN FOR MONITORING BY CONSORTIUM PARTNERS......................................................................... 11 TABLE 4 EXTENT OF KEY AREAS FOR FOCAL SPECIES. THE TOTAL OF KEY AREA (HA) AND THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL

LAND WITHIN THE DATASET SUPPLIED BY WAG GIS TEAM. ................................................................................. 19 TABLE 5 WHOLE-FARM MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS WITHIN TIR CYNNAL WITH POTENTIAL FOR HIGH IMPACT ON

BIODIVERSITY.......................................................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 6 SOME OF THE MAIN CONDITIONS TO PROTECT WILDLIFE HABITATS IN TIR CYNNAL. ...................................... 20 TABLE 7 TIR CYNNAL HABITAT CREATION OPTIONS. ..................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 8 WHOLE-FARM MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS WITHIN TIR GOFAL LIKELY TO IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY...... 22 TABLE 9 FARM FEATURES AND HABITATS THAT REQUIRE MANDATORY MANAGEMENT WITHIN TIR GOFAL THAT ARE

LIKELY TO IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY. .................................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 10 ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS DESIGNED TO INCREASE THE ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE OF LAND

WITHIN TIR GOFAL.................................................................................................................................................. 22 TABLE 11 TIR GOFAL UPTAKE AT NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) AND VICE-COUNTY LEVEL. THE NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS;

MAXIMUM, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR (I) THE NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS, (II) THE AREA OF LAND (HA) AND (III) THE LENGTH OF LINEAR FEATURES (M)............................................................................................ 23

TABLE 12 MAJOR CATEGORIES OF TIR GOFAL MANDATORY HABITATS, OPTIONAL AND CAPITAL PRESCRIPTIONS. RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER BY TOTAL AREA (HA) AND SHOWING THE NUMBER (AND RANKING) OF LAND PARCELS. ................................................................................................................................................................. 24

TABLE 13 LINEAR OR POINT DATA FOR THE MAJOR CATEGORIES OF TIR GOFAL MANDATORY HABITATS, OPTIONAL AND CAPITAL PRESCRIPTIONS. RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER BY LAND PARCELS. LINEAR FEATURES INCLUDE DATA ON TOTAL LENGTH (M) AND RANKING BY LENGTH. ...................................................................................... 25

TABLE 14 THE SCORING SYSTEM USED FOR ASSESSING WHETHER PRESCRIPTIONS WITHIN TIR GOFAL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DELIVER RESOURCES FOR EACH OF THE FOCAL SPECIES. ................................................................ 26

TABLE 15 THE STRUCTURE OF THE DATASET USED TO EXAMINE POTENTIAL DELIVERY OF TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS FOR FOCAL SPECIES. ................................................................................................................... 26

TABLE 16 OVERALL TOTALS OF LAND PARCELS AND AREA (HA) IN TIR GOFAL DATASET. LAND HAS BEEN CATEGORISED INTO EIGHT CATEGORIES. FOR EACH, THE NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS, TOTAL AREA (HA) AND, FOR LINEAR DATA, THE TOTAL LENGTH (KM) IS SHOWN................................................................................................ 27

TABLE 17 THE MANDATORY HABITAT OPTIONS WITH UNSPECIFIED SUB-CATEGORIES. THE NUMBER OF LAND PARCELS CONCERNED AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL ARE SHOWN. ........................................................................... 29

TABLE 18 RE-SCORED COMBINATIONS OF TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AND OPTIONS OCCURRING ON MORE THAN 50 PARCELS OF LAND. THE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF LAND PARCELS SHOWN. ................................................. 29

TABLE 19 THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS WHERE POTENTIAL DELIVERY WAS INCREASED FROM PROVIDING “SOME” TO “ALL” OF THE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS DUE TO AN APPROPRIATE COMBINATION OF PRESCRIPTIONS.................................................................................................................................................................................. 30

TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF DELIVERY SCORES ACROSS ALL 32 FOCAL SPECIES AND THE COMMONEST 50 TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS. ....................................................................................................................................................... 33

TABLE 21 A SUMMARY OF THE ECOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIVE ARABLE PLANT SPECIES IN THE STUDY. DARK CELLS INDICATE A STRONG REQUIREMENT OR ABILITY. GREY CELLS INDICATE A WEAKER REQUIREMENT OR ABILITY. BLANK CELLS INDICATE NO REQUIREMENT OR ABILITY................................................................... 119

TABLE 22 A SUMMARY OF THE ECOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOUR HEATHLAND PLANT SPECIES IN THIS STUDY. DARK CELLS INDICATE A STRONG REQUIREMENT OR ABILITY. GREY CELLS INDICATE A WEAKER REQUIREMENT OR ABILITY. BLANK CELLS INDICATE NO REQUIREMENT OR ABILITY................................................................... 120

TABLE 23 THE SPECIES-SPECIFIC POTENTIAL DELIVERY SCORES (D) FOR PLANT SPECIES BY A) MANDATORY PRESCRIPTIONS, B) OPTIONAL PRESCRIPTIONS, C) CAPITAL WORKS AND D) COMMON COMBINATIONS OF PRESCRIPTIONS ON THE SAME LAND PARCEL WITHIN TIR GOFAL. SCORES ARE PROVIDED FOR INDIVIDUAL PLANT SPECIES, BUT FOR ARABLE (ARA) AND HEATHLAND (HEA) PLANT COMMUNITIES A COMBINED SCORE IS PRESENTED AND THIS WAS USED IN THE ANALYSIS. THE ARABLE (ARA) PLANT COMMUNITY INCLUDES SMALL-FLOWERED CATCHFLY (SF), SHEPHERD’S NEEDLE (SN), WEASEL’S-SNOUT (WS), CORN MARIGOLD (CM) AND ANNUAL KNAWEL (AK); THE HEATHLAND (HEA) PLANT COMMUNITY INCLUDES CHAMOMILE (CH), PILLWORT (PW), MARSH CLUBMOSS (MC) AND THREE-LOBED WATER CROWFOOT (TL). DELIVERY SCORES ARE ALSO PRESENTED FOR JUNIPER (JU) AND PINK WAXCAP (WX). .................................................................................... 123

TABLE 24 DISTRIBUTION TRENDS FOR THE SIX FOCAL BUTTERFLY SPECIES FOR WALES DERIVED FROM SUB-SAMPLING. THE RECORDED DISTRIBUTION IS THE COUNT OF 10KM SQUARES PRIOR TO SUB-SAMPLING. THE POPULATION TRENDS FOR SPECIES WERE MEANINGFUL INDICES COULD BE CALCULATED FROM UK BUTTERFLY MONITORING SCHEME TRANSECT DATA ARE ALSO SHOWN. ....................................................................................................... 131

TABLE 25 REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MARSH FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY................................. 134 TABLE 26 CRITICAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MARSH FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY........................................... 136 TABLE 27 REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BROWN HAIRSTREAK BUTTERFLY............................... 137 TABLE 28 CRITICAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BROWN HAIRSTREAK BUTTERFLY......................................... 138


TABLE 29 REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GRAYLING BUTTERFLY. .............................................. 139 TABLE 30 CRITICAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GRAYLING BUTTERFLY. ........................................................ 140 TABLE 31 REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SMALL PEARL-BORDERED FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY ... 141 TABLE 32 CRITICAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SMALL PEARL-BORDERED FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY ............. 142 TABLE 33 REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SMALL HEATH BUTTERFLY. ........................................ 143 TABLE 34 CRITICAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SMALL HEATH BUTTERFLY ................................................... 144 TABLE 35 REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LARGE HEATH BUTTERFLY.......................................... 145 TABLE 36 CRITICAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LARGE HEATH BUTTERFLY ................................................... 146 TABLE 37 BROAD RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SIX BUTTERFLY SPECIES. BLACK CELLS INDICATE A STRONG

POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. GREY CELLS INDICATE A WEAKER POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. BLANK CELLS INDICATE NO ASSOCIATION......................................................................................................................................................... 147

TABLE 38 FIRST STAGE DELIVERY SCORING SYSTEM FOR BUTTERFLIES USED FOR ASSESSING WHETHER PRESCRIPTIONS IN TIR GOFAL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DELIVER EACH CRITICAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENT OF EACH FOCAL BUTTERFLY SPECIES. ............................................................................................................................................. 148

TABLE 39 DERIVATION OF SCORES FOR THE MARSH FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY. ............................................................ 149 TABLE 40 DERIVATION OF SCORES FOR THE BROWN HAIRSTREAK BUTTERFLY........................................................... 152 TABLE 41 DERIVATION OF SCORES FOR THE GRAYLING BUTTERFLY. .......................................................................... 155 TABLE 42 DERIVATION OF SCORES FOR THE SMALL PEARL-BORDERED BUTTERFLY. .................................................. 158 TABLE 43 DERIVATION OF SCORES FOR THE SMALL HEATH. ........................................................................................ 161 TABLE 44 DERIVATION OF SCORES FOR THE LARGE HEATH. ........................................................................................ 164 TABLE 45 THE SPECIES-SPECIFIC POTENTIAL DELIVERY SCORES (D) FOR BUTTERFLY SPECIES BY A) MANDATORY

PRESCRIPTIONS, B) OPTIONAL PRESCRIPTIONS, C) CAPITAL WORKS AND D) COMMON COMBINATIONS OF PRESCRIPTIONS ON THE SAME LAND PARCEL WITHIN TIR GOFAL. BUTTERFLY SPECIES ARE MARSH FRITILLARY (MF), BROWN HAIRSTREAK (BH), GRAYLING (GR), SMALL PEARL-BORDERED FRITILLARY (SP), SMALL HEATH (SH), LARGE HEATH (LH). .................................................................................................................................... 167

TABLE 46 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF NOCTULE, SEROTINE, PIPISTRELLE SPP. AND LESSER HORSESHOE BATS FOR ROOSTING/FORAGING/COMMUTING ACTIVITIES. BLACK CELLS INDICATE STRONG POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. GREY CELLS INDICATE WEAKER POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. BLANK CELLS INDICATE NO ASSOCIATION. .......................... 183

TABLE 47 RESOURCE USE BY BROWN HARES IN WALES IN (A) THE BREEDING SEASON AND (B) OUTSIDE THE BREEDING SEASON. BLACK CELLS INDICATE STRONG POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. GREY CELLS INDICATE WEAKER POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. BLANK CELLS INDICATE NO ASSOCIATION. KEY: (11. BARNES ET AL. 1983; 1. BRESINSKI 1983; 23. HANSSON 2002; 7. HUTCHINGS AND HARRIS 1996; 20. KALUZINSKI AND PIELOWSKI 1976; 15. KUNST ET AL. 2001; 12. LEWANDOWSKI AND NOWAKOWSKI 1993; 13. MACDONALD ET AL. 2007; 3. MASON 2005; 19. MERIGGI AND ALIERI 1989; 21. MILANAOVA AND DIMOV 1990; 18. NATURAL ENGLAND 2007; 14. PEPIN 1989; 5. PEPIN AND ANGBAULT 2007; 22. RÖDEL ET AL. 2004; 6. RÜHE AND HOHMANN 2004; 17. RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICE 2005; 4. SMITH ET AL. 2004; 9. SMITH ET AL. 2005B; 2. TAPPER AND BARNES 1986; 10. UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL 2003; 16. VAN DER WAL ET AL. 1998; 8. VAUGHAN ET AL. 2003). .............................. 185

TABLE 48 WATER VOLE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW. BLACK CELLS INDICATE STRONG POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. GREY CELLS INDICATE WEAKER POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. BLANK CELLS INDICATE NO ASSOCIATION......................................................................................................................................................... 189

TABLE 49 THE SPECIES-SPECIFIC POTENTIAL DELIVERY SCORES (D) FOR MAMMAL SPECIES BY A) MANDATORY PRESCRIPTIONS, B) OPTIONAL PRESCRIPTIONS, C) CAPITAL WORKS AND D) COMMON COMBINATIONS OF PRESCRIPTIONS ON THE SAME LAND PARCEL WITHIN TIR GOFAL. MAMMAL SPECIES ARE BROWN HARE (BR), WATER VOLE (WV), NOCTULE BAT (NC), SEROTINE BAT (SE), COMMON AND SOPRANO PIPISTRELLE (PI), LESSER HORSESHOE BAT (LB). .......................................................................................................................................... 203

TABLE 50 SUMMARY TABLE INDICATING POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT CONFLICTS AND SYNERGIES FOR MAMMALS. QUESTION MARK INDICATES VARIABLE RESPONSE (POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) DEPENDING ON LOCAL FACTORS, BLANK CELLS INDICATE NO EFFECT. ..................................................................................................................... 205

TABLE 51 CASE STUDY PANT PHYLIP FARM WATER VOLE CONSERVATION THROUGH TIR GOFAL............................. 211 TABLE 52 METHODS USED TO CREATE BIRD KEY AREAS.............................................................................................. 216 TABLE 53 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NINE BIRD SPECIES IN DIFFERENT LIFE-STAGES: N = NEST SITES, SF =

SUMMER FOOD AND WF = WINTER FOOD (AFTER VICKERY ET AL. 2004). THE WINTER FOOD REQUIREMENTS OF LAPWING (LA), CURLEW (CU) AND TURTLE DOVE (TD) ARE NOT CONSIDERED, AS THESE SPECIES ARE NON-RESIDENT. THUS, AES ARE ONLY LIKELY TO BENEFIT BREEDING SEASON RESOURCES. BLACK CELLS = STRONG POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. GREY CELLS = WEAKER POSITIVE ASSOCIATION. BLANK CELLS INDICATE NO ASSOCIATION. BK = BLACK GROUSE, P. = GREY PARTRIDGE, CF = CHOUGH, TS = TREE SPARROW, Y. = YELLOWHAMMER AND CB = CORN BUNTING. ...................................................................................................... 218

TABLE 54 PROBABLE LIMITING FACTORS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE NINE FOCAL BIRD SPECIES (FROM VICKERY ET AL. 2004) ........................................................................................................................................... 219

TABLE 55 SIX-POINT SCORING SYSTEMS (RANKED FROM BEST TO WORST SCORE), USED FOR BIRD SPECIES ONLY, WHICH COMBINES THE EVIDENCE AND DELIVERY SCORES. N = NEST SITES, S = SUMMER FOOD, W = WINTER FOOD...................................................................................................................................................................... 221


TABLE 56 THE SPECIES-SPECIFIC POTENTIAL DELIVERY SCORES (D) FOR BIRD SPECIES BY A) MANDATORY PRESCRIPTIONS, B) OPTIONAL PRESCRIPTIONS, C) CAPITAL WORKS AND D) COMMON COMBINATIONS OF PRESCRIPTIONS ON THE SAME LAND PARCEL WITHIN TIR GOFAL. BLACK GROUSE (BK), GREY PARTRIDGE (P.), LAPWING (LA), CURLEW (CU), TURTLE DOVE (TD), CHOUGH (CF), TREE SPARROW (TS), YELLOWHAMMER (Y.), CORN BUNTING (CB). ............................................................................................................................................ 222

TABLE 57 DATASETS AND SOFTWARE USED IN THE MERGING PROCESS....................................................................... 232


Figure listing: FIGURE 1 RESPONSE OF THE CIRL BUNTING POPULATION TO TARGETED MANAGEMENT IN ENGLISH AES. .................. 10 FIGURE 2 RESPONSE OF BAP PRIORITY BUTTERFLY SPECIES TO TARGETED MANAGEMENT IN ENGLISH AES.............. 10 FIGURE 3 PROPORTION OF ALL TIR GOFAL LAND IN WALES THAT CONSTITUTES MANDATORY HABITATS, LAND WITH

OPTIONAL PRESCRIPTIONS, AND LAND COMPRISING IMPROVED PARCELS ONLY (AND THEREFORE OMITTED FROM SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS). ........................................................................................................................................ 31

FIGURE 4 THE NUMBER OF TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AND THEIR POTENTIAL OF DELIVERY OF THE CRITICAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SIX FOCAL BUTTERFLY SPECIES..................................................................... 38

FIGURE 5 TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AND THE EXTENT OF THEIR POTENTIAL DELIVERY FOR BAT FOCAL SPECIES. ..... 39 FIGURE 6 TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AND THE EXTENT OF THEIR POTENTIAL DELIVERY FOR BROWN HARE. ............... 40 FIGURE 7 TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AND THE EXTENT OF THEIR POTENTIAL DELIVERY FOR WATER VOLE................. 41 FIGURE 8 POTENTIAL FOR DELIVERY OF TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THE FOCAL BIRD SPECIES. ............................ 44 FIGURE 9 NUMBER OF TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS, INCLUDING COMBINATIONS OF PRESCRIPTIONS WITHIN AN

AGREEMENT THAT OCCUR IN TIR GOFAL, AND THEIR POTENTIAL OF DELIVERY FOR THE NINE BIRD SPECIES....... 45 FIGURE 10 NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS, INDIVIDUAL PARCELS OF LAND AND

LAND BY AREA THAT DELIVER TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING ARABLE PLANT SPECIES. .......................... 47 FIGURE 11 PERCENTAGE OF PARCELS OF LAND IN EACH VICE-COUNTY THAT DELIVER TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS

AFFECTING ARABLE PLANT SPECIES. ....................................................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 12 NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS, INDIVIDUAL PARCELS OF LAND AND

LAND BY AREA THAT DELIVER TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING HEATHLAND PLANT SPECIES.................... 49 FIGURE 13 PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL LAND AREA WITHIN EACH VICE-COUNTY THAT DELIVER TIR GOFAL

PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING HEATHLAND PLANT PRIORITY SPECIES........................................................................ 50 FIGURE 14 NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS, INDIVIDUAL PARCELS OF LAND AND

LAND BY AREA THAT DELIVER TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING JUNIPER.................................................... 51 FIGURE 15 PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL LAND AREA WITHIN EACH VICE-COUNTY THAT DELIVER TIR GOFAL

PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING JUNIPER. ...................................................................................................................... 52 FIGURE 16 DELIVERY OF TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING JUNIPER AT AGREEMENT, LAND PARCEL AND AREA

LEVELS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE JUNIPER KEY AREAS. .............................................................................................. 53 FIGURE 17 NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) PERCENTAGE OF LAND BY TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS, INDIVIDUAL PARCELS OF

LAND AND AREA THAT DELIVER TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING PINK WAXCAP........................................ 54 FIGURE 18 PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL LAND AREA WITHIN EACH VICE-COUNTY THAT DELIVER TIR GOFAL

PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING PINK WAXCAP. ............................................................................................................. 55 FIGURE 19 DELIVERY OF TIR GOFAL PRESCRIPTIONS AFFECTING PINK WAXCAP AT AREA, LAND PARCEL AND

AGREEMENT LEVEL WITHIN AND OUTSIDE PINK WAXCAP KEY AREAS................................................................... 56 FIGURE 20 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL

WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE MARSH FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY........................................ 57

FIGURE 21 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE MARSH FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY. ..................................... 58

FIGURE 22 AT KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, FOR LAND WITHIN THE DEFINED KEY AREA (GREEN) AND OUTSIDE THE KEY AREA FOR THE MARSH FRITILLARY. 58

FIGURE 23 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE BROWN HAIRSTREAK BUTTERFLY...................................... 59

FIGURE 24 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL THE WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND PARCELS WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE BROWN HAIRSTREAK BUTTERFLY. ................................................... 60

FIGURE 25 THE PERCENTAGE OF HEDGEROW RESTORATION WORK BEING UNDERTAKEN IN TIR GOFAL, WITHIN EACH VICE-COUNTY, AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE SCHEME TOTAL. .................................................................................... 61

FIGURE 26 AT KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, FOR LAND WITHIN THE DEFINED KEY AREA (SHADED) AND OUTSIDE THE KEY AREA FOR THE BROWN HAIRSTREAK BUTTERFLY.............................................................................................................................................................. 61

FIGURE 27 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE GRAYLING BUTTERFLY. ..................................................... 62

FIGURE 28 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE GRAYLING BUTTERFLY. ................................................... 63


FIGURE 29 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE SMALL PEARL-BORDERED FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY. ......... 63

FIGURE 30 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE SMALL PEARL-BORDERED FRITILLARY BUTTERFLY........................... 64

FIGURE 31 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE SMALL HEATH BUTTERFLY. ............................................... 65

FIGURE 32 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, A) THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL THE WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND B) THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE SMALL HEATH BUTTERFLY. ................................. 65

FIGURE 33 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE LARGE HEATH BUTTERFLY................................................. 66

FIGURE 34 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, A) THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL THE WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND B) THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE LARGE HEATH BUTTERFLY. ................................. 67

FIGURE 35 AT KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, FOR LAND WITHIN THE DEFINED KEY AREA (SHADED) AND OUTSIDE THE KEY AREA FOR THE LARGE HEATH BUTTERFLY.............................................................................................................................................................. 67

FIGURE 36 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE LESSER HORSESHOE BAT. ............................................................ 68

FIGURE 37 AT VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PROPORTION OF AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL (LEFT) AND LAND PARCELS IN TIR GOFAL (RIGHT) WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE LESSER HORSESHOE BAT.................. 69

FIGURE 38 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE NOCTULE BAT. ................................................................... 70

FIGURE 39 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL THE WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND PARCELS WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE NOCTULE BAT. .................................................................................. 71

FIGURE 40 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE LAND PARCELS AND LAND AREA WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR THE PIPISTRELLE BATS. ............................................................. 71

FIGURE 41 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL THE WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND PARCELS WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE PIPISTRELLE BATS............................................................................. 73

FIGURE 42 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND PARCELS WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR BROWN HARE. .............................................................................................................. 74

FIGURE 43 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, A) THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL THE WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, B) THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND PARCELS WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES AND C) THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR THE BROWN HARE.................................................................................... 75

FIGURE 44 AT THE NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND PARCELS WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR WATER VOLE................................................................................................................ 76

FIGURE 45 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENTS IN TIR GOFAL THE WITH THE DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND PARCELS WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTIONS SCORES FOR WATER VOLE............................................................................................ 77

FIGURE 46 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR BLACK GROUSE. ................................................................................. 78

FIGURE 47 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES (LEFT) AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES (RIGHT) FOR BLACK GROUSE. .............................................. 79


FIGURE 48 AT THE KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR BLACK GROUSE. ........................................................................ 80

FIGURE 49 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR GREY PARTRIDGE. ..................................................................... 80

FIGURE 50 AT A VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES (LEFT) AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES (RIGHT) FOR GREY PARTRIDGE. ........................................... 81

FIGURE 51 AT A KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR GREY PARTRIDGE. ..................................................................... 82

FIGURE 52 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR LAPWING. ............................................................... 82

FIGURE 53 AT A KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR LAPWING. .................................................................................. 83

FIGURE 54 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR CURLEW. ................................................................ 84

FIGURE 55 AT THE KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR CURLEW.............................................................................................. 84

FIGURE 56 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR TURTLE DOVE......................................................... 85

FIGURE 57 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR CHOUGH. ................................................................ 86

FIGURE 58 AT THE KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR CHOUGH. ................................................................................... 86

FIGURE 59 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR TREE SPARROW. ..................................................... 87

FIGURE 60 AT THE KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR TREE SPARROW. ........................................................................ 88

FIGURE 61 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR YELLOWHAMMER................................................... 88

FIGURE 62 AT THE VICE-COUNTY LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR YELLOWHAMMER...................................................................... 89

FIGURE 63 AT THE KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR YELLOWHAMMER...................................................................... 90

FIGURE 64 AT A NATIONAL (ALL-WALES) LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF TIR GOFAL AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR CORN BUNTING....................................................... 90

FIGURE 65 ARABLE PLANT KEY AREAS. DEFINED BY THE 10-KM SQUARE OCCURRENCE OF ANY OF THE FIVE PRIORITY ARABLE PLANT SPECIES PLUS ANY OTHER 10-KM SQUARE IN WHICH 2 OR MORE THREATENED RED DATA LIST ARABLE PLANT SPECIES HAVE BEEN RECORDED SINCE 1987. ............................................................................... 113

FIGURE 66 HEATHLAND PLANT KEY AREAS. SELECTED THROUGH DENSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF RECORDS OF FOUR HEATHLAND PRIORITY PLANT SPECIES. ................................................................................................................. 115

FIGURE 67 UPLAND JUNIPER KEY AREA, DEFINED BY 1-KM SQUARE OCCURRENCE OF ALL UPLAND JUNIPER POPULATIONS RECORDED SINCE 2000................................................................................................................... 116

FIGURE 68 PINK WAXCAP KEY AREA, DEFINED BY OCCURRENCES OF ALL FRUITING BODIES RECORDED SINCE 1987, SURROUNDED BY A 3KM RADIUS BUFFER ZONE. ................................................................................................... 117

FIGURE 69 MAPS SHOWING THE 10KM SQUARE DISTRIBUTION OF: MARSH FRITILLARY (TOP LEFT), BROWN HAIRSTREAK (TOP RIGHT), GRAYLING (CENTRE LEFT), SMALL PEARL-BORDERED (CENTRE RIGHT), SMALL HEATH (BOTTOM LEFT) AND LARGE HEATH (BOTTOM RIGHT) AS DETERMINED BY THE 2004-2004 SURVEY TOGETHER


WITH DATA FROM TWO PREVIOUS SURVEY PERIODS (1995-99 AND 1970-82). SOURCE: THE STATE OF BUTTERFLIES IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND, (FOX ET AL. 2006)................................................................................ 131

FIGURE 70 MAPS SHOWING THE KEY AREAS IN WALES FOR THE MARSH FRITILLARY, BROWN HAIRSTREAK AND LARGE HEATH BUTTERFLIES. ............................................................................................................................................ 133

FIGURE 71 MAPS SHOWING THE 10KM SQUARE DISTRIBUTION OF: LESSER HORSESHOE (TOP LEFT), NOCTULE (TOP RIGHT), COMMON AND SOPRANO PIPISTRELLE (BOTTOM LEFT), AND SEROTINE (BOTTOM RIGHT) BATS. SOURCE: DISTRIBUTION ATLAS OF BATS IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND (RICHARDSON 2000), AND UNPUBLISHED CCW AND NBMP DATA FROM 2007. ..................................................................................................................................... 174

FIGURE 72 BROWN HARE RECORDS 2006-2007 AND KEY AREAS IN CEREDIGION........................................................ 176 FIGURE 73 KEY AREAS IDENTIFIED IN WALES (SHADED) FOR BROWN HARE. FURTHER KEY AREAS MAY BE IDENTIFIED

WITH GREATER SURVEY EFFORT. MAP COURTESY OF WILDLIFE TRUSTS WALES................................................ 177 FIGURE 74 NATIONAL WATER VOLE SURVEY RESULTS: 1989 – 1990 (LEFT) AND 1996-1998 (RIGHT). ................... 178 FIGURE 75 KEY REGIONAL AREAS IDENTIFIED IN WALES (SHADED) FOR WATER VOLE............................................... 179 FIGURE 76 FOR BROWN HARE AT THE KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN

TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND PARCELS WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR LAND WITH THE DEFINED KEY AREA (PINK) AND LAND OUTSIDE THE KEY AREA ON MAP.......................................................................................................................................... 207

FIGURE 77 FOR BROWN HARE WITHIN CEREDIGION, AT THE KEY AREA LEVEL, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PRESCRIPTION AREA WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, THE PERCENTAGE OF LAND PARCELS WITHIN TIR GOFAL WITH THE DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION SCORES, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENTS WITH LAND WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM PRESCRIPTION SCORES FOR LAND WITH THE DEFINED KEY AREA (PINK) AND LAND OUTSIDE THE KEY AREA ON MAP. ................................................................................... 208

FIGURE 78 AREAS IN WALES (SHADED RED) TARGETED AS PART OF THE TIR GOFAL SPECIES PACKAGE FOR WATER VOLE (CCW, IN PREP). .......................................................................................................................................... 214

FIGURE 79 KEY AREAS FOR THE NINE BIRD SPECIES. .................................................................................................... 217


1

1 Executive Summary

1. This review was undertaken as a partnership project between Bat Conservation Trust, Butterfly Conservation, Plantlife, Wildlife Trust Wales and led by RSPB, on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG).

2. The species used for this assessment were selected because of their conservation importance at a Wales and/or UK level including Section 42, UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and Red List species.

3. For an AES to provide ecological benefits it must offer prescriptions that address the key ecological requirements and any limiting factors for a given species. The combination of certain prescriptions on a single land parcel, or across an agreement, can increase the potential delivery.

4. This desk review assessed the potential for Tir Gofal and other agri-environment schemes to provide the essential requirements for 33 priority species for birds, invertebrates and mammals and two plant communities

5. The aim of the study was to assess how AES can help WAG achieve its conservation policy targets and commitments for these species by delivering key ecological resources needed to sustain them, in the correct places and in sufficient quantity.

6. The study comprised:

• a literature review to assess the species’ year-round ecological requirements

• for each species, assigning a score to each agri-environment scheme prescription (including capital work options)

• identifying ‘key areas’ for these species at all-Wales and vice-county levels

• assessing the uptake of the scored prescriptions within the ‘key areas’

• evaluating the potential for each sustaining species based on the uptake of AES prescriptions and their geographical targeting at the national (all-Wales) and vice-county levels.

7. The approach used can be considered to be relatively novel because it covers a wide range of taxa and focuses on those that are some of the priority species in Wales.

8. In addition to evaluating species diversity, this study evaluates agri-environment schemes (AES) in terms of the specific response of these species.

9. Tir Gofal has the potential, in terms of prescriptions availability to address the year-round ecological requirements for many of the study species.

10. However, some species, e.g. chough, lesser horseshoe and serotine bats, are not adequately provided for in the schemes. Currently, AES are therefore unlikely to be having a positive influence on these populations.

11. Beneficial prescriptions uptake for some species, e.g. brown hare, is encouraging in terms of the number of Tir Gofal agreements.

12. However for some, e.g. arable plant communities, the actual ‘on the ground’ area of these prescriptions implemented may to be too insignificant to drive an effect at the population level.

13. There is generally better delivery potential for rarer species associated with distinct habitat types.

14. Recommendations included in this report in the light of the findings of this desk study e.g. key issues to address for future Axis 2 measures.

Tir Cynnal


2

15. Tir Cynnal is not prescription based so it has not been possible through this review to determine its potential to deliver critical resources for focal species.

16. However, Tir Cynnal may have the potential for some benefit for most species considered in this review through the whole farm provisions. For one species, Brown Hairstreak, whole farm conditions for field boundaries are actually more beneficial than the similar Tir Gofal requirements, particularly where hedgerows are used to meet the 5% habitat area condition.

17. The key as to how well Tir Cynnal contributes to providing the ecological resources needed by the study species lies in the level of uptake of the seven habitat creation options available for farmers who do not meet the 5% habitat area condition. Increased use of the habitat creation options could provide more potential benefit for focal species and additional options have further potential for arable-dependent species.

18. Given the generally low uptake for the scheme, the supposition that many entrants will already have the required 5% habitat (so will not adopt any habitat creation options), and the fact that the most attractive habitat creation option is likely to be the more straightforward reduction of inputs on improved grassland, Tir Cynnal can only be expected to deliver very little on a Wales-wide scale for biodiversity.

Organic Farming Scheme

19. Evidence suggests organic farming can provide general wildlife benefits for some of the study plants, bats and birds through mechanisms such as a lack of pesticides and because of the general ethos of the farmers involved (see Hole et al. 2005).

20. However, in terms of biodiversity management, the Organic Farming Scheme appears to offer little more than what can already be achieved through basic cross-compliance measures.

21. The lack of prescriptive measures makes it difficult to assess the scheme’s potential benefit for the focal species, which in itself suggests limited delivery potential. Coupled with the current low uptake, it seems very unlikely that the Organic Farming Scheme could deliver anything significant for the focal species.

22. Unless combined with a scheme offering greater delivery potential e.g. Tir Gofal, this scheme’s potential biodiversity benefits are considered to be limited to any potential benefits provided by general organic farming practices.

Tir Gofal

23. This desk study suggests there is variable delivery potential through Tir Gofal for achieving favourable ecological outcomes for the focal species considered.

24. For some individual species, e.g. five of the six focal butterfly species and for some individual plant, mammal and bird species, results suggest that most Tir Gofal prescriptions could have moderate to good potential delivery.

25. Tir Gofal has the additional potential for water vole, through increased use of special project prescriptions, which can not only deliver specific habitat enhancement schemes but more crucially implement American mink control at a local and landscape scale.

26. Of the 50 prescriptions reviewed, most of those ranked in the top third in terms of potential delivery are mandatory rather than optional requirements - although there are differences between taxa and between individual species and groups.

27. When ranked in terms of potential delivery across all of the species considered in this review, eight out of the nine highest-scoring prescriptions potentially provide all the key ecological


3

requirements for five or more focal species, as do five other prescriptions that scored less-highly overall.

28. All 50 prescriptions gave some potentially positive delivery for at least one species during at least one life stage/time of year, although seven prescriptions lacked the potential to deliver all the requirements necessary to ensure year-round survival for any of the focal species.

29. Combinations of prescriptions within the same agreement can increase delivery potential for many of the focal species, e.g. water vole and yellowhammer.

30. For optional prescriptions which have by far the highest potential delivery scores, uptake of these prescriptions is low.

31. While many Tir Gofal prescriptions have moderate to good delivery potential, this review suggests that the uptake level of beneficial prescriptions, or poor prescriptions targeting, could limit benefits for many species. This is apparent both across all the study taxa and for individual species.

32. Although in most cases evidence on the scale of prescription deployment needed to deliver population-level benefits is generally lacking, it is very unlikely that uptake of Tir Gofal prescriptions at current levels will deliver landscape-level benefits for many species, particularly the more widespread species or groups (e.g. arable plant communities and some farmland birds such as tree sparrow).

33. There is generally better delivery potential for rarer species (e.g. large heath) associated with distinct habitat types, with greater uptake of beneficial prescriptions within key areas. For black grouse, resources may be focused on the key areas through ‘targeting by default’: due to the association with key upland habitats, and their associated mandatory prescriptions for scheme entrants.

34. The results for some other more widespread species, e.g. grey partridge, also suggest a degree of resource focussing into key areas that is likely to be due to the strong association with arable farming.

35. Such concentration of good prescriptions within key areas could result in population-level benefits but in all cases (as outlined in this review), delivery potential needs to be verified by monitoring.

36. However, for some species, e.g. all the mammals considered, there is little apparent targeting of beneficial prescriptions in key areas.

37. For prescriptions that have high uptake and widespread distribution but are poorly targeted, Tir Gofal still has potential to deliver for the species at a landscape level (e.g. for brown hare).

38. For most species, there are a few potentially detrimental prescriptions. Generally, these are far outweighed by the beneficial prescriptions available but rarely, e.g. for pink waxcap in some areas, the uptake of beneficial prescriptions is matched or even exceeded by the uptake of detrimental ones.

39. Prescriptions with the highest potential delivery scores rarely had potentially adverse impacts on any of the focal species, although there were a few exceptions, e.g. scrub clearance.

40. Across the suite of focal species, only three out of 50 prescriptions had markedly negative delivery scores. In most areas of Wales, arable land conversion is likely to be particularly detrimental.

41. For a minority of individual species or groups, there is poor provision of beneficial prescriptions within Tir Gofal. For example, no prescriptions are available that deliver all of the key resource requirements for chough, while only one (uncropped fallow margins) delivers all the needs of arable plant species.


4

42. A major shortfall of the Tir Gofal scheme for bats is the absence of a specific prescription to maintain or enhance biodiversity relating to buildings or underground structures. Some bats rely almost entirely on maintained structures for roosting rather than buildings that fall into disrepair or are unsympathetically converted. Consequently, the potential for the scheme to deliver for these species or communities is very limited.

43. A number of general caveats should be considered when interpreting these analyses for Tir Gofal prescriptions:

• Delivery (as expressed in this report) is a potential score rather than representing demonstrable delivery on the ground.

• The quality of prescriptions as implemented for biodiversity objectives is beyond the scope of this desk study and needs to be tested in the field. The Welsh Assembly Government are currently in the process of addressing the urgent need for monitoring.

44. Factors that could influence whether this desk evaluation accurately reflects delivery potential of Tir Gofal prescriptions and consequently whether these prescriptions are likely to deliver demonstrable benefits on the ground include:

• Adequate advice to inform prescription establishment and correct maintenance, in order to address the needs of particular focal species.

• Prescriptions need to be carried out as per the management guide requirements.

• Incorrect habitat classification could lead to harmful/inappropriate prescriptions being implemented on Tir Gofal agreements.

45. Numerous taxa, species and Tir Gofal prescription-specific conclusions are given within the review.

Recommendations

46. The conclusions reached in this review suggest some improvements to Welsh AES are required if biodiversity targets and commitments are to be met. In particular, Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver for many more species, if some gaps in prescription delivery and, critically, shortfalls on uptake can be addressed. For most of the species considered in this review, AES offer the only realistic mechanism to facilitate the recovery of their populations and meet targets and commitments. It is crucial that AES are designed to maximise potential delivery for priority species.

47. The following recommendations are based on the key findings from this review. There is a need to:

• Address the prescription gaps for those species where existing options (or combinations of options do not deliver all the key year-round resource requirements of focal species. This needs to be considered in future Axis 2 measures.

• Increase the uptake of advantageous prescriptions in the key areas for individual species.

• Where a prescription has some potential benefit for part of a target species’ life-cycle but fails to deliver all the key ecological requirements, using option combinations within the same agreement should be considered (or for less mobile species, within the same land parcel).

• Address the identified conflicts within, and across, taxa groups with advice and guidance to scheme project officers and entrants.

• If species with conflicting requirements are present within (or close by), then prescriptions could be implemented in some areas of an agreement and not in others to allow a diversity of habitats and management approaches.


5

• For sedentary taxa, prescription delivery needs to be highly targeted at the parcel (i.e. field) level, as these taxa are unable to move easily to other sites.

• At the landscape scale, ensure that sufficient areas and connectivity (land parcels) of habitat exist and, where desirable, increase the complexity of the habitat mosaic.

• Support the development of species packages (CCW: in preparation) to target prescriptions at vulnerable species that require: (i) prior survey to confirm species presence; (ii) careful targeting of certain prescriptions, or (iii) avoidance of critically damaging prescriptions.

• Enhance the availability of species distribution information to land managers and advisers by improving the records resource database.

• Any potentially detrimental impacts from implementing prescriptions should always be evaluated before these prescriptions are instigated.

• Increase uptake of relevant prescriptions to meet the indicative quantities required for a response at the population level, if this has been quantified for a species.

• Where it has not been quantified, conduct further research into the quantities of habitats required to give a response at the population level is required.

48. Additionally, the following general recommendations would contribute to and help verify delivery of biodiversity benefits:

• Monitoring would establish whether potential to deliver (as indicated in this review) in translated into actual delivery for key species at the farm (and wider) scale.

• Undertake monitoring in areas of AES and non-AES controls to assess benefits of schemes and, ideally, before (baseline) and after AES comparisons for new entrants. (Once adequate monitoring is in place it will it be possible to verify whether the potential for delivery translates into demonstrable benefits at the option and/or farm-levels and, ultimately, over a wider-scale. This could positively affect population trends at regional-level or throughout Wales).

• Ensure prescriptions are of sufficient quality when implemented. This could be achieved through more visits to assess habitat condition on agreements or through better training and advising of land managers.

• For Tir Cynnal, changes to the information held on the government’s agreement database should be considered to differentiate agreements that contain habitat creation options. (This would allow for systematic recording of the extent and type of habitat creation options adopted would assist any future studies of delivery of critical resources by this scheme. Without these data, for most of the species covered by this study, it would also be difficult to establish cost-effective protocols for the monitoring of Tir Cynnal).

• Improved funding for Tir Gofal could increase the total area and numbers of land parcels of good prescriptions to the extent there are likely to be more benefits at a population scale. (Currently, annual capping of the number of entrants may be hampering this).


6

2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Background to declines in farmland biodiversity The loss and degradation of wildlife habitats in farmed landscapes during the second half of the last century and declines in the distribution and numbers of species associated with farmland has been well documented (e.g. Conrad et al. 2006; Siriwardena et al. 1998; Thomas et al. 2004). Studies have demonstrated, or strongly suggested, causal links between agricultural intensification and biodiversity losses both in the UK, and more widely in Europe (Donald et al. 2001; Donald et al. 2006). Intensification is multifaceted and relationships between individual species and many specific modern farmland management practices have been demonstrated (e.g. Newton 2004). Key changes in farming in Wales since the mid C20th are likely to include:

• farm specialisation • the loss of mixed farming; particularly the loss of arable ‘pockets’ from areas in

which pastoral farming dominates • grassland ‘improvement’ • the loss of cattle grazing • the increase in sheep grazing • the switch from hay to silage • increase in pesticide use

Many species depending on farmed habitats have suffered steep population declines in Wales over recent decades – the following are some examples:

• downy hemp-nettle is extinct in the UK - last seen in 1975 on a farm near Bangor • small-flowered catchfly has been lost from 93% of sites • chamomile has been lost from 37 sites • shepherd’s-needle is now found at only 2 sites • marsh fritillary has declined by 32% between 1970/82 – 1995/2004 • high brown fritillary has declined by 82%, and is now found at only one site in Wales • water voles have disappeared from approximately 95% of previously inhabited sites in the UK • brown hare has undergone a substantial decline in numbers since the early 1960’s • pipistrelle bat numbers were estimated to have dropped by about 70% in the UK between the

1970s and 1990s • greater horseshoe bats are thought to have declined by 90% in the last 100 years, and are now

generally confined to southwest England and south Wales • curlew declined by 81% between 1993-2006, with only 1099 pairs remaining in 2006 • lapwing declined by 77% between 1987-1998 • yellowhammer declined by 44% between 1994 and 2006

2.2 Background to agri-environment schemes (AES) 2.2.1 EU There have been two major developments in the legislative history of agri-environment schemes (AES) in the EU. In 1992, a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aimed to reduce agricultural production and to protect and enhance the environment. Although some member states already had AES in place, because of the CAP reform it became compulsory for member states to implement such schemes, which are now an integral part of EU rural development policy (Barnett 2007). The next important change was driven by the “Agenda 2000” proposals of 1999, which were essentially a continuation of the CAP reform and the move away from production support towards decoupled payments. Importantly, “Agenda 2000” brought together a range of regulations into a single Rural Development Regulation that now forms the 2nd Pillar of the CAP reform. Although this now means that agri-environment has lost its dedicated regulation, it is still the only compulsory regulation for member states within the Rural Development Regulation and the area covered by AES agreements in 2002 was 25% of the Utilised Agricultural Area (Barnett 2007).


7

2.2.2 Wales There has been a long history of AES in the UK and acceptance by Government (both at UK-level and in the constituent countries) of the need to introduce a mechanism to tackle the declines of wildlife associated with farmland. The 1986 Agriculture Act prompted the introduction of the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) scheme in 1987. ESA aimed to safeguard areas of countryside where the landscape, wildlife or historic interest is of national importance. ESA were designed to target specific aspects of the environment that were sensitive to changing land-use. More than 40 ESA were established in the UK, of which six were in Wales. Participation within the schemes was voluntary but only land within the ESA boundary could be entered. The CAP reform allowed CAP money to be used to finance AES for the first time and this allowed a rapid increase in ESA areas (Grice et al. 2007). The development of a dedicated all-Wales AES began in July 1992, with the introduction of Tir Cymen in three pilot areas: Meirionnydd, Dinefwr and Swansea. Administered by the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), the purpose of the whole-farm scheme was to ensure that basic support for agriculture also took account of environmental factors (Welsh Office 1991). In addition to halting the decline of wildlife habitats, the scheme also sought to demonstrate the use of landscape, habitat and access objectives as a means of achieving management at larger geographical units than an individual farm (Reaston and Knightbridge 1997). Although there was no strong evidence of benefits to wildlife, Tir Cymen was considered successful from a socio-economic viewpoint (ADAS 1995), and led to the introduction in April 1999 of an all-Wales AES called Tir Gofal. This whole-farm scheme aims to encourage agricultural practices that will protect and enhance the landscapes of Wales, their cultural features and associated wildlife. It is a key element of the Rural Development Plan for Wales and there are currently 332,643 ha of land and 2969 agreements (Table 1). As with earlier schemes, entry into an agreement is voluntary and the costs are partly met by the EU under the provisions of the CAP. Initially CCW administered the delivery of the Tir Gofal programme on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) but in October 2006 responsibility for administering the scheme passed to the WAG (Colman et al. 2007). Table 1 The extent of land and number of agreements of Agri-environment schemes in Wales.

AES Designated area (ha) Number of agreementsEnvironmentally Sensitive Area 78 502 959Tir Gofal 332 643 2969Tir Cynnal 261 530 3903Habitat Scheme 2 557 279Organic Farming Scheme 35 390 373Organic Maintenance Scheme 34 468 402bold - figure revised 12th June 2007

Adapted from “Welsh Agricultural Statistics 2006”.

Unlike ESA in Wales and Tir Cymen, entry to Tir Gofal is based on the initial ecological, historic or scenic value of the land. Entry is not simply on a first come, first served basis. To ensure that the scheme achieves maximum movement towards its targets, with the limited funding available, farms in the best initial condition or prepared to do the most are given priority. Applications are assessed using a scoring system that awards points for existing habitat features and richness, and the willingness to recreate these. No points are awarded where there is already a legal requirement relating to a feature on the applicant’s land (e.g. the maintenance of public rights of way in an unobstructed condition), or for designations such as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The number of farms entering the scheme is constrained by the funding available and annually from 2000 to 2006 between 286–755 agreements were arranged (Colman et al. 2007). To increase the number of farms participating in AES, and to bring a larger area of farmed land into environmental protection, an entry-level AES, Tir Cynnal, was launched in 2005. This was further augmented in 2007 with the introduction of the Organic Farming Scheme, jointly funded by the Welsh


8

Assembly Government and the European Commission to promote the contribution that organic farming can make to environmentally sensitive food production (Table 1). 2.3 The role of AES in reversing biodiversity declines In 2001, at the Gothenburg summit, EU Heads of State and Governments set out an agreement to ‘halt the decline of biodiversity by 2010’. Both the UK government and the WAG have committed to deliver on this target, with WAG setting out the detail of this target in the Environment Strategy, June 2006:

Outcome 19: The loss of biodiversity has been halted and we can see a definite recovery in the number, range and genetic diversity of species, including those species that need very specific conditions to survive

Timeline: International commitment to halt loss of biodiversity by 2010, recovery to

be underway by 2026. Indicators: Trends in key Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats Trends in wild bird population index Indicators to illustrate range and genetic diversity to be developed Outcome 20: “The wide environment is more favourable to biodiversity though

appropriate management, reduced habitat fragmentation and increased extent and interconnectivity of habitats”.

Timeline: 2010 Indicators: Proportion of land under agri-environment agreement by scheme …

WAG has also specifically committed to a target for the populations of wild birds, such that those that are now in decline must have stabilised or started to rise by 20108. Policy initiatives developed and co-financed through the EU CAP under the broad heading of AES have been established to tackle wildlife habitat loss and degradation in farmed landscapes. These are now considered a key mechanism for reversing the declines in farmland biodiversity (e.g. Evans et al. 2002; Vickery et al. 2004). WAG has indicated that it sees Tir Gofal as a key mechanism to reverse trends in biodiversity loss, with one key objective of the scheme being to ‘protect and enhance habitats of importance to wildlife.’9 However, to date there has been no comprehensive research or monitoring into the effectiveness of the scheme in reversing declines in species (see section 2.4). Evans and Green (2006) have outlined the benefits of AES that include “broad and shallow” elements (such as Tir Cynnal) for delivery for widespread species alongside “narrow and deep” elements (such as Tir Gofal) to deliver for rarer, more specialised species. There is evidence that organic farming is beneficial for wider ecosystem services and recent reviews of the science concluded that on average, there is a positive benefit to wildlife conservation on organic farms ( Hole et al. 2005; Shepherd et al. 2003). However, to date there has been no species monitoring linked to the Welsh Organic Farming scheme. In a recent review, the CCW identified 59 priority species where current mechanisms appear to be failing to achieve targets10. AES have been identified by CCW as the main mechanism for reversing the declines

8 In 2000 BetterWales, 2001 Plan for Wales, and repeated in WAQ 42366 April 2005 9 “Tir Gofal – A guide to the Scheme” WAG and CCW 2003 10 Unpublished report, CCW, L.Howe 2006


9

in Wales of at least 41 species of Principal Biodiversity Importance11. 33 of these are included in the scope of this review and are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Summary of focal species for this review.

Tir Gofal presents the primary opportunity for reversing declines and maintaining these species, through improved habitat management and the provision of optional prescriptions that are intended to make improvements for wildlife (such as unsprayed cereal crops, wild bird cover and winter stubbles in arable situations). However, at this time, it is unclear whether Tir Gofal and other AES agreements are providing the critical resources necessary, in the right places, at the right times and at the right density to know whether the scheme will (or have the potential to) contribute to WAG achieving its own and the wider EU biodiversity targets. 2.4 Welsh Audit Office Report on Tir Gofal In November 2007, the Auditor General for Wales produced an audit of the performance of Tir Gofal (Colman et al. 2007). The report concludes that the scheme is well designed and managed, costs more than originally expected (£19 million in 2006/07) and that it is likely to be having a positive benefit on the rural environment with evidence of broader cultural and socio-economic benefits. However, despite one of the main objectives of the scheme being to protect and enhance habitats important to wildlife, the evidence of the scheme’s impact on the environment is inconclusive and there are significant gaps in the WAG research and evaluation coverage. For example, the impact on animal species has not been assessed. The report makes clear recommendations for the development of a monitoring and evaluation strategy covering the range of prescriptions and focusing on outcomes. 2.5 The importance of AES monitoring Across Europe, there has been much debate about the efficacy of AES for delivering farmland biodiversity targets (e.g. Kleijn et al. 2001). This is hampered by the fact that many schemes have been poorly, or inadequately, monitored (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003). However, there is evidence (mainly from the UK) that targeted, well-monitored schemes, backed up by sound advice to farmers implementing the options, can deliver on biodiversity targets (Vickery et al. 2004). For example, provision of weedy cereal stubbles and invertebrate-rich grassland for cirl buntings via a special project in Countryside Stewardship (CS) agreements, led to a significant population increase of 146% in 9 years on CS land, compared to an increase of 58% on surrounding non-Stewardship land (Wotton and Peach 2007; Figure 1).

11 As defined under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 s74, (and updated in section 42 of the Natural England and Rural Communities Act 2006)and set out in’ Going Wild in Wales’ WAG 2003

Plants Butterflies Mammals Birds

corn marigold marsh fritillary lesser horseshoe bat black grouseweasel's-snout brown hairstreak noctule bat grey partridgeshepherd's-needle grayling common pipistrelle lapwingannual knawel small pearl-bordered fritillary soprano pipistrelle curlewsmall-flowered catchfly small heath serotine bat turtle dovepillwort large heath brown hare choughthree-lobed water-crowfoot water vole tree sparrowmarsh clubmoss yellowhammerchamomile corn buntingjuniperpink waxcap


10

Figure 1 Response of the cirl bunting population to targeted management in English AES.

Agri-environment schemes have failed to halt the general decline of butterflies on farmland in England: there had been a significant decline (30% decline over ten years) in mean abundance of 40 butterfly species assessed. However, schemes have helped to slow and, in some cases, reverse the decline of targeted BAP Priority species (Brereton et al. 2005; Figure 2).

Figure 2 Response of BAP priority butterfly species to targeted management in English AES.

Twenty years after the first AES were implemented, the efficacy of these schemes is still in doubt (Kleijn 2006), and there is a pressing need to demonstrate the environmental benefits to justify the financial resources (Barnett 2007). Kleijn and Sutherland (2003) suggest that ecological evaluations must become an integral part of any scheme, in order that judgement on effectiveness of delivering value for money for the taxpayer can be made. This review evaluates the potential of prescriptions in the Welsh agri-environment schemes to deliver key resource requirements of the key focal species identified in Table 2. The evaluation is based on existing knowledge of their distribution and resource requirements. Given the potential significance of AES (in particular Tir Gofal) for delivering biodiversity in Wales (WAG 2003), comprehensive evaluation, followed by monitoring, is needed to assess the performance of AES in relation to delivering increases in priority species in Wales. This would serve both as a measure of the cost-effectiveness of these schemes and would provide an indication of the effect of Tir Gofal and other AES on populations in the wider countryside. This type of evaluation will provide the data needed for WAG to ensure that its policy is evidence-based and whether and when biodiversity targets have been reached.


11

2.6 Outline of review objectives Central to the aims of this review is the research question: “What proportion of current Tir Gofal, Tir Cynnal and Organic Farming Scheme agreements meet all (or some) of the critical needs of the focal species?”

More specifically for each of focal species, this study:

• Reviews the ecological literature to confirm the critical resources required by each focal species (e.g. for birds, this would be summer food, winter food and breeding sites).

• Assesses which prescriptions and scheme requirements have the potential to contribute to delivering these resources for each of the focal species.

• Uses WAG Tir Gofal agreement data to determine what proportion of the Tir Gofal scheme (in terms of land area, habitat parcels and numbers of agreements) and, for more mobile species, whether recommended habitat management protocols are close enough together, at the critical times of year.

• Determines whether Tir Gofal agreements with potentially suitable prescriptions for focal species overlap with current species range (at the vice-county and key area scales) using distribution maps.

This will provide information on whether, as currently deployed, Tir Cynnal, the Organic Schemes and, in particular, Tir Gofal have the potential to deliver species requirements and will provide useful information to feed into the Welsh Rural Development Plan Axis 2 review of AES in 2008. 3 METHODS 3.1 The review consortium: a partnership approach to AES evaluation The findings and conclusions in this document are based on the consortium members’ reviews of critical resource requirements and a desk study evaluating the delivery potential of components of Welsh AES. They do not reflect ‘real’ delivery on the ground, which still need to be checked through a programme of evaluation and monitoring in the field. In order to assess the potential of Welsh AES prescriptions to deliver key resources for a suite of species of Principal Biodiversity Importance across multiple taxa, this review has adopted a consortium approach to evaluation, bringing together experts on different indicator taxa (Table 3). Table 3 Taxa chosen for monitoring by consortium partners.

Vertebrates Birds Bats Terrestrial mammals

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Wildlife Trusts Wales (WTW)

Invertebrates Butterflies Butterfly Conservation (BC) Plants Flowering plants

Lower plants and fungi Plantlife Wales (Plantlife) Plantlife Wales (Plantlife)

RSPB assumed overall project management responsibility for the project and co-ordinated activities of the other consortium members. All personnel involved in this project and their organisational affiliations are listed below. Dr Tim Stowe (RSPB), Tony Morris (RSPB), Dr Jennifer Smart (RSPB), Katie-jo Luxton (RSPB), Nick Birula (RSPB), Dave Lamacraft (RSPB/WAG), Dr Ian. Johnstone (RSPB), Clare Williams (BC), Russel Hobson (BC), Dr Tom Brereton (BC), Richard Dodd (BCT), Dr Karen Haysom (BCT), Alison Rasey (BCT), Dr Trevor Dines (Plantlife), Robert Jones Parry (WTW) and Dr Lizzie Wilberforce (WTW). Clare Horton and Colin Chapman (WAG Technical Services Division, Aberystwyth) provided the GIS data for Tir Gofal.


12

3.2 Data on focal species 3.2.1 Reason for selection of focal species For all focal species, a full list of English, Welsh and Latin species names along with the threat status are given in section 8.5.1. 3.2.1.1 Plants 3.2.1.1.1 Arable plant communities The gradual decline in populations of arable plants across Britain since the 1950s is well known and well documented, and represents the greatest loss of plant biodiversity by any single habitat (Preston et al. 2002a and b; Preston et al. 2003; Braithwaite et al. 2006). Five arable species are now extinct in Britain, the most recent loss being downy hemp-nettle from a farm near Bangor (Caernarfon) in 1975. A new analysis of the threats facing the UK flora has shown that 20 and 17% of Critically Endangered and Endangered plants respectively, are arable species (Cheffings and Farrell 2005; Dines in prep a). The drive to increase agricultural productivity within arable systems has resulted in several interrelated reasons for these losses (Wilson and King, 2003). These include:

1. Increased use of broad spectrum and specific herbicides. 2. Modern agricultural crops out-competing arable plants species for critical resources. 3. Development of efficient crop seed cleaning techniques. 4. Change to cropping schedules and rotations.

3.2.1.1.1.1 small-flowered catchfly It is a UK BAP priority species, is listed as a principle species of conservation concern in Wales (Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006) and is included in Plantlife’s Back from the Brink programme of species recovery. It is listed as Endangered in the new UK Red List (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to a 72% decline in its area of occupation. In Wales, it is regarded as Vulnerable (Dines in prep b) because of a 43% decline in 10-km square occurrences. It has been recorded from 74 sites in Wales but since 1987 has only been recorded from 16 (21%) of these. 3.2.1.1.1.2 shepherd’s-needle It is a UK BAP priority species, is listed as a principle species of conservation concern in Wales (Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006) and is included in Plantlife’s Back from the Brink programme of species recovery. It is listed as Critically Endangered in the new UK Red List (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to an 85% decline in its area of occupation. In Wales, it is also regarded as Critically Endangered (Dines in prep b) because of a 93% decline in its area of occupation. It has been recorded from 30 sites in Wales but since 1987 has only been recorded from four (13%) of these. 3.2.1.1.1.3 weasel’s-snout Although declining nationally, it is not regarded as a priority species and has no statutory protection. It is listed as Vulnerable in the new UK Red List (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to a 32% decline in its area of occupation. It is not regarded as threatened in Wales because most of the decline took place before 1950 (Dines in prep b), but has been lost from 55% of 10-km squares from which it has been recorded historically. 3.2.1.1.1.4 corn marigold Although declining nationally, it is not regarded as a priority species and has no statutory protection. It is listed as Vulnerable in the new UK Red List (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to a 40% decline in its area of occupation. It is not regarded as threatened in Wales because most of the decline took place before 1950 (Dines in prep b), but has been lost from 45% of 10-km squares from which it has been recorded historically. 3.2.1.1.1.5 annual knawel This species currently has no statutory protection, but is listed on the new Stage 1 UK BAP list (BRIG, 2007). It is listed as Endangered in the new UK Red List (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to a 72% decline


13

in its area of occupation. It is not regarded as threatened in Wales because most of the decline took place before 1950 (Dines in prep b), but has been lost from 58% of 10-km squares from which it has been recorded historically. 3.2.1.1.2 Heathland plant communities As a habitat, lowland heathland has historically been especially vulnerable to agricultural improvement. Low-lying, flat and predominantly coastal, large areas have been drained, ploughed and fertilised for the production of arable crops or, more often in Wales, re-seeded to create permanent pasture for grazing. The planting of conifer plantations has also taken a considerable toll on this habitat, as has the deposition of atmospheric nitrogen (Braithwaite et al. 2006). What remain are often highly fragmented remnants of original heaths that no longer function as ecosystems, as species are unable to move between them. The plant species characteristic of the Dwarf shrub heath Broad Habitat have undergone significant declines, suffering the second most severe decline of any species group in mapped at the UK level (Preston et al. 2002a and b; Preston et al. 2003) and the third most significant when mapped at the local level (Braithwaite et al. 2006). Of all plant species characteristic of Dwarf shrub heath, 19% are threatened with extinction in the UK (Cheffings and Farrell, 2005; Dines, in prep a). In Wales, the loss of lowland heath has been especially significant. On the Lleŷn peninsula, for example, 95% of wet heaths and 50% of dry heaths have been lost since the early 1920s (Blackstock et al. 1995). On Anglesey, it has been estimated that there was a 47% loss of heathland between 1940 and 1993 (Norris and Stevens 1999). Four priority species have been used to represent this group in this review. All these species form part of Plantlife's Back from the Brink programme of species recovery in Wales. 3.2.1.1.2.1 pillwort This species is a widespread but declining plant, regarded as a UK BAP priority species and a Wales Section 42 species. It classified as Near Threatened in the UK (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to a 28% reduction in its range. In Wales, it is not regarded as threatened, but has been lost from 40% of sites from which it has been recorded historically (Dines in prep b) and is now recorded from just 44 sites. 3.2.1.1.2.2 three-lobed water-crowfoot Three-lobed water-crowfoot is a UK BAP priority species and a Wales Section 42 species. It classified as Endangered in the UK (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to a 71% reduction in area of occupation. In Wales, it is recorded from 28 sites and is not regarded as threatened (Dines in prep b); although it has been lost from 42% of its sites, it has been recorded from several new sites now following the reintroduction of appropriate grazing regimes at former sites. 3.2.1.1.2.3 marsh clubmoss Marsh clubmoss is a UK BAP priority species and a Wales Section 42 species. It classified as Endangered in the UK (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to a 59% reduction in extent of occurrence. In Wales, it is regarded as Vulnerable to extinction (Dines in prep b) because it is found at only five sites and there is a continuing decline in the number of both plants and populations. Two sites have been lost in Wales since 1999. 3.2.1.1.2.4 chamomile Native chamomile is a Wales Section 42 species and is listed on the Stage 1 list of new UK BAP priority species (www.ukbap.org.uk). It is classified as Vulnerable to extinction in the UK (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) due to a 41% reduction in extent of occurrence. It is more threatened in Wales, being regarded as Endangered (Dines in prep b) because of a 53% decline in hectads. It is currently recorded from 25 sites but has been lost from 37 historically. 3.2.1.1.3 juniper


14

Juniper is an UK BAP priority species and appears on the Section 42 list in Wales. Unlike most other priority species, it has not suffered any measurable decline in either the UK or Wales. In both areas, it is classified as Least Concern (i.e. not threatened). In Wales, juniper occurs in two distinct habitats. Lowland, coastal populations generally occur on the limestone cliffs of the Gower peninsula and the north Wales coast, especially on the Great Orme's Head. These are usually of Juniperus communis subsp. communis, although four plants of J. communis subsp. hemisphaerica are known on the cliffs of Ramsey Island, Pembrokeshire. Most populations are in protected areas and often large (one near Llandudno includes some 300 bushes). In contrast, populations of juniper in upland Wales are very small and fragmented (Dines and Daniels 2006). These are found in Snowdonia on mostly acidic rocks and include plants of both of J. communis subsp. communis and J. communis subsp. nana, sometimes in mixed populations. These populations are usually small and isolated; of the 45 sites recorded, 68% are of populations of five or fewer bushes. Only two populations number more than 100 plants. Upland juniper populations are more threatened than those in the lowlands. Because of the need for appropriate management of upland juniper in Snowdonia, only these upland populations are considered in this report. 3.2.1.1.4 pink waxcap Pink waxcap fungus is an UK BAP priority species. It is regarded as Nationally Scarce in the UK, but this status is being updated following the results of recent surveys that show it to be more frequent than previously thought. In Wales, it is recorded from c.180 populations, of which c.156 have been recorded in or since 1987. It has long been recognised that the waxcaps, as a group, are severely threatened by the inappropriate management of their grassland habitats (Holden 2007). The distribution of this particular species is better understood than most fungi due to its distinctive coloration (Holden 2007). 3.2.1.2 Butterflies Insects make up the largest proportion of terrestrial wildlife in Britain (over half the species). Insect monitoring is therefore vital in assessing the overall state of biodiversity. Butterflies have short life cycles and are very sensitive to environmental changes, which make them especially good biological indicators of changes brought about by habitat management practices such as in AES. Moreover, many butterflies breed in grassland habitats that have been a major target of AES, and, because they are sensitive to vegetation structure, they are highly responsive to grazing regimes. This rapid sensitive response to environmental change and presence in all main terrestrial habitat types in the UK (except for dead wood), makes butterflies good indicators of the broad state of wildlife and the countryside (Ehrlich 1994; Thomas, 2005). Britain’s butterflies are in rapid decline. Three-quarters of our 54 resident species have declined since the 1970’s and six species have been lost from more than half of their distribution. Five species have become extinct since butterfly recording began in 1800. Butterflies restricted to semi-natural habitats (e.g. flower-rich grasslands and woodland clearings) have fared badly compared with wider countryside species, over recent decades, with 93% of species in decline and an overall drop in abundance of 30% (Fox et al. 2007). Six butterfly species have been chosen to represent this taxon for this project, all of which are priority species for conservation action at both the UK and Wales level. The species selected are characteristic of a variety of terrestrial habitats, represent both those with widespread and restricted distributions, and include those with general and more specialist ecological requirements. Moreover, the appropriate targeting of AES is considered to offer a real possibility of providing conservation benefit to all these species. For all focal butterflies, the main reasons for their selection are detailed below; further information can be found in section 8.2.1 3.2.1.2.1 marsh fritillary


15

The Marsh Fritillary has one of the greatest long-term population declines of all butterflies. It has suffered distribution decreases of 32% in Wales and 46% in the UK: 1970-82 vs 1995-2004 (Fox et al. 2006). Data from the United Kingdom Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS12) shows a moderate decline in abundance in both the UK and Wales. 3.2.1.2.2 brown hairstreak The Brown Hairstreak has suffered a decline of 50% in recorded distribution in Wales (1970-82 vs 1995–2004), and a decline of 43% in recorded distribution for the same period at a UK level (Fox et al. 2006). 3.2.1.2.3 grayling A formerly widespread species, the Grayling is in serious decline, with a decrease in recorded distribution of 30% in Wales and 45% overall at UK level: 1970-82 vs 1995–2004 (Fox et al. 2006). Abundance data from the UKBMS shows it as having undergone a steep decline in Wales. 3.2.1.2.4 small pearl-bordered fritillary The Small Pearl-bordered Fritillary is generally widespread and locally abundant in Wales but has suffered a decline in recorded distribution of 36% in Wales and 34 % at UK level: 1970-82 vs 1995–2004 ( Fox et al. 2006). 3.2.1.2.5 small heath The Small Heath is a generally widespread species but has suffered a decline in its recorded distribution of 17% in Wales and 29% in the UK: 1970-82 vs 1995–2004 (Fox et al. 2006). Abundance data from the UKBMS shows it as stable in Wales. 3.2.1.2.6 large heath The large heath has undergone a distribution decline of 52% in Wales and 43% in the UK: 1970-82 vs 1995–2004 ( Fox et al. 2006). 3.2.2 Mammals 3.2.2.1 Bats There are 17 species of bats in the UK, of which at least 15 occur in Wales. Not only are all 17 species themselves protected (by both EU and UK law) from capture, injuring, killing or disturbance, their roosts are also protected from damage or destruction at all times, regardless of whether bats are using them at the time; this is because bats are loyal to their roosts and return year after year, relying on particular roosts at particular times in their yearly life cycle. Bats and roosts are protected because of severe population declines. Relatively little study has been undertaken into the specific impacts of AES on bats, although studies into the effects of organic farming on bat activity and species richness (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003) have been undertaken, as well as various studies into the ways bats use and forage within the landscape. Consequently, monitoring of AES effects on bats is important for the future. 3.2.2.1.1 lesser horseshoe bat Wales and south-west England are considered a stronghold for the lesser horseshoe bat in the UK. It is a rare and endangered bat (BCT 2007), a BAP priority species and included on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. It is at the northern edge of its European range in the UK, and its future distribution and population trends could be affected by climate change. 3.2.2.1.2 noctule bat The noctule bat is a widespread species in Wales and England, and is a BAP priority species (assigned in 2007). It is also on Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive.

12 The UKBMS is run as a partnership between Butterfly Conservation and the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology with input from a number of other organisations. It maintains and develops network of transect and other monitored sites in order to assess and interpret the abundance and status of UK butterflies.


16

3.2.2.1.3 common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle The common and soprano pipistrelles are very widespread and the most usually encountered bat species in the UK (BCT 2007). Thought to be only one species until recently, DNA analysis proved that they are in fact two distinct species (Jones and Barratt 1999). When still thought to be one species, the ‘pipistrelle’ was originally assigned as a BAP priority species because of significant population declines (the National Bat Colony Survey suggests population declines of approximately 70% between 1978 and 1993). In 2007 however, the common pipistrelle had this status removed, but the soprano pipistrelle retained BAP priority species status. Both these pipistrelle species are on Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive. 3.2.2.1.4 serotine bat The serotine bat is uncommon, with only occasional records for Wales (BCT 2007), but it may be under-reported. Anecdotal reports suggest its distribution may be shifting westwards in the UK. It narrowly missed being assigned BAP priority species status in 2007, and it is on Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive. The serotine was selected for this study because it preys on moths and beetles (Schober and Grimmberger 1989), and for optimal foraging habitat it requires unimproved grassland in early summer (supporting cockchafer beetles) and then cattle pasture (supporting dung beetles) (BCT 2007). Radio-tracking studies in southern England identified cattle pasture, village greens, tree-lined hedgerows and woodland edge as important for foraging (Catto et al. 1996, Robinson and Stebbings 1997). It is therefore likely that declines in cattle numbers, and possible that the use of Avermectins in cattle (McCracken 1995), could adversely impact on serotine population numbers. 3.2.2.2 brown hare Brown hares have suffered a significant decline in the UK since the 1960s, and many of these losses have been attributed to changes in agriculture. However since 1995, numbers appear to have been relatively stable (Tracking Mammals Partnership 2007). It is a priority species in the UK with a national Species Action Plan (SAP) (UK Biodiversity Group 2008). In Wales, the species is listed as Principle Importance for Conservation of Biological Diversity under Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. However, on the IUCN Red List of threatened species, it is listed as being of ‘Least Concern’ based on its wide distribution in Europe and the security of most subpopulations (IUCN 2008). In relation to hunting, it is included in Appendix III of the Bern Convention and, in the UK, it is covered by the Ground Game Act (1880) and the later Hare Preservation Act (1892). The Wildlife and Countryside Act does not protect brown hares. In fact, the brown hare is less protected in the UK than it is elsewhere in Europe (Cowan 2004). 3.2.2.3 water vole The water vole is the fastest declining mammal species in Great Britain (Driver 1998), having disappeared from approximately 90% of previously occupied sites (Jefferies 2003; Strachan et al. 2000; Strachan and Jefferies 1993). In response to its decline, the water vole has received legal protection under the Wild Mammals (protection) Act 1996 and through its inclusion (April 1998) on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 Section 9 (A) (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act 2000)). Most recently (April 6th 2008), water voles have been afforded full protection under the WCA 1981, providing legal protection for the species. It is now possible to designate SSSI specifically for water voles (Battersby and Tracking Mammals Partnership 2005). The water vole is a Species of Conservation Priority and Biodiversity Action Plan Target Species with its own Species Action Plan (SAP). In Wales, the species is listed as Principle Importance for Conservation of Biological Diversity under Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, which places a duty on the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) to have regard, in exercising its functions to conserve biological diversity in Wales in accordance with the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity. The water vole has also been named a flagship wetland species in determining the focus of a proposed Top-Tier AES in Wales based on its dependency on wetland habitat. They are often considered an indicator of habitat quality (Brown and Edwards 2006).


17

3.2.3 Birds All nine bird species covered by this review have unfavourable conservation status (section 8.5.1) and, with the exception of chough which is amber-listed, the remainder of the species are red-listed as birds of conservation concern in Wales (Thorpe and Young 2002). In addition, all nine species are principal biodiversity species (National Assembly for Wales 2003) for which WAG has additional commitments e.g. as a species that contributes to the Birds of Farmed Habitats suite13 of the Wild Bird Indicator for Wales (Johnstone et al. 2005; Johnstone et al. 2004; Welsh Assembly Government 2005), or as a species in decline at the time of WAG’s pledge to halt the decline of bird species (Johnstone et al. 2006b). Finally, for all of these species, AES are considered the primary mechanism for reversing population declines and restoring former ranges. Additionally, there are species-specific reasons for selection that are listed below. 3.2.3.1 black grouse Black grouse has shown a historic decline in numbers and range. The population is currently in the region of 213 lekking males (Lindley et al. 2007). 3.2.3.2 grey partridge In Wales, this species is now too scarce to be monitored by the UK-wide Breeding Birds Survey, from which UK bird population trends are derived. No recent population estimate or short term (since 1994) trend is available, although it is known to have declined in range, the long-term indicator for this species showing a decline of 43% (Johnstone et al. 2004). 3.2.3.3 lapwing In Wales, lapwing has shown a drastic decline in recent years such that it is now too scarce to be monitored by the BBS, a recent survey having been unable to produce a population estimate. However, extrapolation of data from repeat surveys, suggest a population estimate of just 600-700 pairs in Wales in 200614. 3.2.3.4 curlew Despite its scarcity, curlew are still monitored by the BBS in Wales, demonstrating a decline of 40% 1994-2006, although a recent species-specific survey estimates the Welsh population at 1099 pairs, a decline of 81% (1993-2006; Johnstone et al. 2006a). 3.2.3.5 turtle dove This species has declined, both in numbers and range, to such an extent they are now on the verge of extinction in Wales. As few as 0-6 singing males have been present in recent years (R. Thorpe pers. comm.; Green et al. 2007). 3.2.3.6 chough Although currently increasing in Wales, which holds a significant proportion (53%) of the population in the UK and Isle of Man (Johnstone et al. 2007), chough is on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, and is amber-listed as a bird of conservation concern in Wales due to its unfavourable conservation status in Europe (Thorpe and Young 2003). Although not monitored by the BBS, chough is monitored by the SCARRABS monitoring programme15.

13 Birds of farmed habitats – species that in The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland 1988-91 (British Trust for Ornithology, Scottish Ornithologists’ Club and Irish Wildbird Conservancy) are defined as farmland or upland species, with the addition of chough. 14 Based on the most recent population estimates and rates of decline from repeat surveys, the wider countryside rate of decline (12% per annum; BTO repeat sample surveys) extrapolated from two previous population estimates (1998 BTO; 1993 O’Brien) suggests a population of 586-696 pairs in 2006. 15 Statutory Conservation Agencies/RSPB Annual Breeding Bird Scheme


18

3.2.3.7 tree sparrow In Wales, as in much of the U.K., this species has shown a long-term decline in range. Due to the small sample, it is no longer possible generate an accurate BBS population trend for Wales. The population is known to have increased in some localities in response to conservation measures put in place to specifically aid tree sparrows e.g. Twyi floodplain (Green 2002) and near Rhyl (J Hickerton pers. comm.). 3.2.3.8 yellowhammer This is the only species considered here that is still widespread enough to be monitored by the BTO/JNCC/RSPB BBS16, it had declined by 40% 1994-2006 (Raven et al. 2007). 3.2.3.9 corn bunting Corn buntings have declined, in numbers and range, to such an extent they are now on the verge of extinction in Wales. As few as 0-3 singing males have been present in recent years (J. Dyda pers comm.; Green and Pritchard 2006). 3.2.4 Key Areas for focal species For all but the most widespread or data-deficient focal species, “key areas” were defined to encompass geographical areas occupied by populations, or supporting high densities, of each species. Accurate identification and definition of key areas is important when targeting finite resources of AES at scarce or localised focal species. Failure to do so may result in limited resources being expended in areas outwith the range or major centres of population for the focal species. The exact processes used to define key areas, along with maps of these areas, are outlined in individual accounts in sections 8.1.1 (plants), 8.2.2 (butterflies), 8.3.1 (mammals) and 8.4.1 (birds), along with further data on distributions and populations. Once key areas were defined, the WAG GIS team supplied a dataset that included all Tir Gofal land and land outside Tir Gofal but within the key areas. For each species where a key area has been defined, the total extent of the key area for each species is given in Table 4.

16 The BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey was established in 1994 to provide population trends for a range of common and widespread bird species in the UK.


19

Table 4 Extent of key areas for focal species. The total of key area (ha) and the percentage of total land within the dataset supplied by WAG GIS team.

3.3 Data on Agri-Environment Schemes 3.3.1 Tir Cynnal 3.3.1.1 Summary of Tir Cynnal requirements and uptake Tir Cynnal is the Welsh entry-level AES and is open to all farmers, provided they have sufficient control over the farming of the land e.g. owners, tenants with an agricultural or farm business tenancy. Introduced in 2005, the scheme gives Welsh farmer’s opportunities to protect areas and features of environmental importance on their land in return for an annual payment. Requiring greater levels of environmental protection than Cross Compliance requirements, but not as demanding as Tir Gofal, Tir Cynnal aims to:

1. Prevent loss of biodiversity on the farm by protecting wildlife habitats 2. Protect important landscape features on farmland, including traditional field boundaries 3. Safeguard the historic environment by protecting the archaeological and historic sites and

features from damage 4. Help protect and improve the quality of water, soil and air by measures to reduce pollution and

raise awareness of the risks. This review is principally concerned with the first and second objectives as potential mechanisms for delivering biodiversity benefits for the focal species, and so further descriptions of the scheme requirements will be restricted to those that have the potential to deliver these biodiversity benefits. Within Tir Cynnal, relevant scheme components are to:

1. Comply with whole farm conditions (Table 5) 2. Protect all wildlife habitats from damage. For the main types of habitats (see below and Table 6) 3. Have at least 5% of the land on the farm as a wildlife habitat and protected from damage (Table

7)

Species Key area total area (ha) % of total area

Black grouse 61216 2.9Grey partridge 142006 6.8Lapwing 190975 9.2Curlew 295790 14.2Turtle dove 36006 1.7Chough 129080 6.2Tree sparrow 372724 17.9Yellowhammer 783188 37.6Corn bunting 3818 0.2Marsh fritillary 610030 29.3Brown hairstreak 289088 13.9Large heath 55135 2.6Arable plants 558464 26.8Heathland plants 189873 9.1Juniper 4941 0.2Pink Waxcap 52858 2.5Brown hare 688132 33.0Water vole 311928 15.0Noctule bat 253166 12.2Serotine bat 53773 2.6Lesser horseshoe bat 518149 24.9Total area = 2083,260 ha


20

The whole farm conditions with potential for high impact on biodiversity are detailed in Table 5. Table 5 Whole-farm management prescriptions within Tir Cynnal with potential for high impact on biodiversity.

Retain and maintain existing traditional field boundaries (e.g. hedges). Leave at least 25% of all hedges untrimmed each year and do not trim between 1 March and 31 August. Retain a buffer strip 1m wide on both sides of the base of the field boundary without using any cultivations, fertilisers, lime, herbicides or other pesticides. Retain and replace individual trees and small groups of trees. Retain dead trees. Safeguard rock features by avoiding physical disturbance and burning of vegetation on rocky areas Maintain a 2m buffer zone around rock features without using any cultivations, fertilisers, lime, herbicides or other pesticides Protect all water features i.e. lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and ditches A 1m wide buffer strip must protect all ponds, streams and rivers or 10m when organic manures are used. The main types of wildlife habitats protected by the scheme are broad-leaved woodland, scrub, heathland, grassland, wetland and coastal areas. These are subject to a range of conditions, which include those detailed in Table 6. Table 6 Some of the main conditions to protect wildlife habitats in Tir Cynnal.

Do not plough, cultivate or reseed Do not roll or chain harrow between 15 March and 15 July to avoid ground nesting birds during their breeding season Do not install new drainage Do not clear out ditches between 1 March and 31 August Do not use herbicides or pesticides other than for spot treatment of notifiable weeds Retain ant hills Do not remove any accumulations of seaweed It is a condition of the scheme that the area of wildlife habitat on participating farms must reach at least 5% of the total area. Where this condition is not met by habitats (e.g. as detailed above) farmers can include existing hedgerows provided they meet certain conditions e.g. be at least 2m wide, consist of native species, be stock-proof. If the farm still has less then 5% habitat, there are a number of habitat creation options available that farmers could choose in order to reach at least 5%. These options are detailed in Table 7.

Table 7 Tir Cynnal habitat creation options.

Reducing inputs to revert improved land to semi-improved Creating streamside corridors alongside water courses Leaving uncropped margins on cereal land Creating grass margins on cereal land Small scale broad-leaved tree planting Establishing a wild bird cover crop Establishing a crop of unsprayed roots

Geo-referenced data was not available for Tir Cynnal.


21

3.3.2 Organic Farming Scheme 3.3.2.1 Summary of Organic Farming Scheme requirements and uptake The Organic Farming Scheme is a 5-year scheme provided for under the Rural Development Programme for Wales 2007 – 2013. It is jointly funded by the Welsh Assembly Government and the European Commission and is a key part of the Organic Action Plan for Wales. The scheme objectives are set as follows: “The Welsh Assembly Government values the contribution that organic farming can make to environmentally sensitive food production. Organic farming seeks to work with natural processes using methods which are designed to achieve a sustainable production system with limited use of external inputs. The potential for pollution and environmental damage is lessened as organic farming avoids the use of artificial fertilisers and synthetic pesticides. Instead it emphasises the role of crop rotation in helping to maintain soil fertility and to combat pest and disease problems and relies on the use of fertility-building crops and natural fertilisers, such as animal manure.” Farmers have to meet certain requirements to receive payments under the scheme, such as ensuring each parcel is registered with an Organic Certification Body during the lifetime of the agreement, and complying with Cross Compliance. Geo-referenced data was not sought for the Organic Farming Scheme, as there are no specific management rules or options that are likely to be of benefit to biodiversity within the context of this review. 3.3.3 Tir Gofal 3.3.3.1 Summary of Tir Gofal requirements and uptake Tir Gofal is an AES, available on farmed land throughout Wales, which rewards farmers for caring for the environmental, historical and cultural features on their land. Tir Gofal builds on the experience of previous schemes, such as ESA and Tir Cymen. It is designed to support the farming community in protecting the rich heritage of rural Wales and reflects the WAG’s priorities for sustainable farming, coupled with greater opportunities for public enjoyment of the countryside. Agreements apply to the whole farm and last for ten years with a break clause after five years. Tir Gofal has four main objectives that are:

1. To protect and enhance habitats of importance to wildlife 2. To protect and enhance the beauty of the landscape 3. To protect and enhance historic and archaeological features 4. To provide opportunities for new public access to the countryside

This review is principally concerned with the first objective as a mechanism for delivering biodiversity benefits and further descriptions of the scheme requirements will be restricted to those that have the potential to deliver biodiversity benefits. Within Tir Gofal, scheme requirements can be broadly split into three sections:

1. The whole farm management plan 2. Managing specific features and habitats 3. Additional commitments for increasing the environmental value of the land

The whole farm section is a list of general prescriptions (Table 8) that all agreement holders have to adhere to and which apply to the entire holding, including those areas not under a specific management prescription.


22

Table 8 Whole-farm management prescriptions within Tir Gofal likely to impact on biodiversity.

Retain and maintain existing traditional field boundaries (e.g. hedges). Leave at least 25% of all hedges untrimmed each year and do not trim between 1 March and 31 August. Retain a buffer strip 1m wide on both sides of the base of the field boundary without using any cultivations, fertilisers, lime, herbicides or other pesticides. Retain and replace individual trees and small groups of trees. Retain dead trees. A 1m wide buffer strip must protect all ponds, streams and rivers or 10m when organic manures are used. Agree a whole-farm stocking rate that avoids any over or under grazing. Agreement holders must consult the Project Officer before undertaking any construction, any works involving watercourses or waterbodies, quarrying, or use of the land for commercial or recreational activities. Each Tir Gofal agreement will have a management plan that identifies specific features and habitats (Table 9) and will contain specific prescriptions that are designed to enhance the environmental value. In addition, there are specific restrictions relating to management practices such as burning, grazing, mowing, fertilising and clearing drains and which prevent habitats being ploughed, reseeded or subjected to other detrimental agricultural operations. Additional to the mandatory whole-farm management and protection of habitats, farmers can also adopt a range of management prescriptions designed to increase the environmental value of land within Tir Gofal (Table 10).

Table 9 Farm features and habitats that require mandatory management within Tir Gofal that are likely to impact on biodiversity.

Broadleaved woodland Scrub Traditional orchards and parkland Heathland Unimproved and semi-improved grassland Wetlands Coastal habitats Agriculturally improved grasslands Traditional boundaries

Table 10 Additional management prescriptions designed to increase the environmental value of land within Tir Gofal.

Arable • Unsprayed Cereal, Rape and Linseed Crops • Winter Stubbles with limited winter grazing • Spring Cereals or Oilseed Rape Undersown with Grasses and Legumes • Unsprayed Root Crops followed by Winter Grazing • Rough Grass Margins • Uncropped Fallow Margin (maximum of 3ha per agreement) • Establishment of Wildlife Cover Crop (maximum of 3ha per agreement) • Conversion of Arable to Grassland - this option is only available on sites that have been

continuously managed for arable crops for at least 5 years and will normally be limited to coastal locations, parkland, historic sites and land adjacent to wetlands.

Grassland restoration • Convert improved grassland to semi-improved grassland • Restoration of semi-improved grassland


23

• Management of improved grassland for breeding lapwing • Management of improved grassland for over-wintering wildfowl

Restoration of other habitats • Increase water levels on suitable habitats and features • Establish new broadleaved woodlands and scrub • Establish streamside corridors on improved land • Establish new reedbeds and other swamps • Establish heathland vegetation on acid or coastal grassland and cliff • Establish heathland on improved Land • Establish new saltmarshes • Establish new sand dunes on improved Land

Additional payments for introduction of cattle grazing Tir Gofal Scheme summary statistics on uptake are given in Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13. Table 11 Tir Gofal uptake at National (all-Wales) and vice-county level. The number of agreements; maximum, mean and standard deviation for (i) the number of land parcels, (ii) the area of land (ha) and (iii) the length of linear features (m).

Area Agreements Max Mean SD Max Mean SD Max Mean SD

National 2925 1166 71.2 62.3 4253.0 80.5 142.1 8430.9 1425.2 1238.4

Anglesey 68 229 56.4 49.0 597.8 56.4 90.0 5186.9 1058.3 1030.0Brecon 225 913 101.9 82.6 4253.0 106.7 304.5 7075.3 1939.3 1426.9Caernarfon 230 1166 76.9 90.6 1214.1 143.9 198.0 5320.8 1038.9 790.0Carmarthen 621 788 69.7 54.4 283.0 48.8 47.5 6946.7 1590.1 1330.6Ceredigion 413 263 68.0 48.5 1220.2 69.6 97.6 8430.9 1676.2 1562.7Denbigh 254 311 71.2 55.3 919.2 101.9 121.3 7842.1 1470.1 1197.7Flint 37 194 53.4 40.5 573.8 72.8 109.1 3821.4 1274.3 1006.6Glamorgan 229 248 62.5 56.5 805.8 86.8 129.7 5170.9 1340.4 1120.4Meirionnydd 334 482 65.8 69.2 1152.1 146.5 180.8 4264.4 1159.4 817.8Monmouth 141 222 58.1 37.9 340.3 55.3 56.5 6513.7 1088.0 1012.6Montgomery 195 233 47.6 43.9 1122.2 85.2 126.9 4121.3 1113.2 804.4Pembrokeshire 320 224 33.6 32.6 262.3 17.7 37.1 6069.5 1442.9 1233.6Radnor 127 181 62.4 46.9 666.2 99.6 126.4 5867.4 1307.6 1350.4

Linear feature length (m)Land parcels Area (ha)

The number of agreements nationally is less than the summed total of the vice-counties because some agreements fall across more than one vice-county.


24

Table 12 Major categories of Tir Gofal mandatory habitats, optional and capital prescriptions. Ranked in descending order by total area (ha) and showing the number (and ranking) of land parcels.

Prescription Area (ha) Land parcels Rank land parcelImproved land 82659.52 49402 1Un-improved acid grassland 27386.64 9516 5Upland heath 25766.41 2815 8Semi-improved grassland 22044.02 18974 3Marshy grassland 12717.54 10889 4Broadleaved woodland 12063.10 19182 2Bog 11175.63 1978 12Reedbeds, fens and swamps 5172.87 3202 7Conversion of improved grass to semi-improved grass 2994.00 1995 11Parkland 2238.43 1092 16Un-sprayed cereal, rape & linseed crops 2078.65 810 18Lowland coastal heath 1941.42 1287 15Coastal habitat - improved grass 1874.05 724 19Un-sprayed root crops - winter grazed 1795.11 970 17Spring cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 1492.24 706 21Un-improved neutral grassland 1396.42 2100 10Scrub 1234.50 3989 6Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub 727.16 1839 13Winter stubble 713.55 207 28Orchards 586.37 421 23Manage improved grass - breeding lapwing 578.58 254 26Saltmarsh 459.99 194 29Bracken control 325.13 720 20Buffer zone 260.78 2202 9Coastal habitat - semi-improved grass 242.34 152 32Establish streamside corridors 236.95 1789 14Wildlife cover crop 213.35 352 24Conversion of arable land 198.04 82 36Maritime cliff & slope grazed 183.61 188 30Coastal habitat - marshy grass 159.75 109 35Un-improved limestone grassland 152.25 165 31Sand dunes 134.40 66 37Uncropped fallow margins 84.12 258 25Rough grass margins 77.07 231 27Scrub clearance 65.60 547 22Coastal habitat - un-improved neutral grass 65.22 23 43Coastal habitat - woodland 58.51 47 38Manage improved grass - wildfowl 46.13 24 42Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 42.96 29 40Other invasive species control 9.37 111 34Coastal habitat - scrub 5.84 15 44Restoration of semi-improved to un-improved grass 5.69 46 39Increase water levels 4.89 4 47Creation or restoration of ponds 3.76 130 33Establish new reedbeds/swamps 3.42 6 46Rhododendron control 2.96 28 41Establish new sand dunes 1.32 3 48Coastal habitat - un-improved acid grass 1.02 1 51Coastal habitat - bog 0.47 1 50Heather management 0.08 2 49Establish heathland vegetation 0.02 15 45


25

Table 13 Linear or point data for the major categories of Tir Gofal mandatory habitats, optional and capital prescriptions. Ranked in descending order by land parcels. Linear features include data on total length (m) and ranking by length.

Data type Prescription Land parcels Length (m) RankLinear Hedgerow restoration 48378 3426403.8 1Linear Stone walls 6990 393886.6 2Linear Piping for water supply 3760 296382.0 3Point Water troughs 2767Point Other nestboxes 2380Linear Earthbanks 1018 72253.3 4Point Barn owl nestboxes 658Linear Stone faced earthbanks 567 29321.1 5Point Special projects 339Point Bunds and sluices 286Point Pollarding 125Point Trees and shrubs 124Linear Slate fences 85 4511.53 6

3.4 Analysis 3.4.1 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions For each of the focal species and for each habitat, optional prescription and capital work (collectively termed prescriptions hereafter), a score was assigned based on an assessment of whether the prescription has the potential to deliver some, or all, of the critical resource requirements for each species. The scoring process involved three general stages: Stage 1: A review of the relevant scientific and grey literature for focal species or closely related

species to identify the likely resource and habitat requirements. Stage 2: A critical examination of the documentation, used by the Tir Gofal project officers, for

each prescription to gain an understanding of what each is likely to deliver in terms of habitat and resources. Thus, there is a caveat here that each prescription is judged according to delivery of that prescription as described in the scheme rules and guidance.

Stage 3: For all taxa, expert judgment was used to assign a delivery score based on expert knowledge and information gained from stages 1-2. Each partner in the consortium is considered to have expert knowledge in his/her field and taxa.

This three-stage process produced “delivery scores”, which indicate whether prescriptions have the potential to provide all of the resource requirements, some of the resource requirements, were of no consequence, or potentially detrimental to each focal species (Table 14). Matrices of options within Tir Gofal scored according to whether they have the potential to deliver for each focal species of plants, butterflies, mammals and birds are given in Table 23 (plants), Table 45 (butterflies),


26

Table 49 (mammals) and Table 56 (birds). Table 14 The scoring system used for assessing whether prescriptions within Tir Gofal have the potential to deliver resources for each of the focal species.

Delivery score Explanation -2 Potential to be detrimental 0 Of no consequence for the species (i.e. neither positive nor negative) 1 Potential to deliver some of the resources requirements 317 Potential to deliver all of the resource requirements For bird species only, the existence of a very large published evidence base made it possible to qualify delivery scores with an “evidence score”, indicating whether the was “weak” or “strong” evidence of prescriptions having proven effects. Further details of evidence scoring for birds are given in section 8.4.3. 3.4.2 GIS data on Tir Gofal agreements and prescriptions Geo-referenced data on every parcel of land registered within every Tir Gofal agreement were extracted from the WAG database by staff within the Technical Services Division from the Evidence and Research Co-ordinator Branch. The data required for this project were relatively simple and are outlined within the TG data type in Table 15. Table 15 The structure of the dataset used to examine potential delivery of Tir Gofal prescriptions for focal species.

3.4.3 Merging AES and focal species datasets Following the completion of the species-specific prescription scoring and the definition of key areas for focal species, these data were supplied to the WAG GIS team in order that the prescription scores and key

17 The top delivery score (potential to provide all resource requirements) is assigned a value of “3”, as it is now widely recognized within farmland bird research that there are three life-stages that provide all the vital resource requirements for birds; nest sites, breeding season food and winter food: often termed “the Big 3” (Vickery et al. 2004). These requirements vary with (and within) taxa but for the purposes of uniformity within this review, provision of all is scored “3”.

Data type Variable ExplanationTG data1 Vice county Watsonian vice-county

Agreement no. Unique number identifying each agreement Feature/habitat code Main feature or habitat code for each parcelOption1 Code for optional prescriptions applied to the land parcelOption2Option3Capital works Code for capital works applied to the land parcelCapital additions Code for capital additions applied to the land parcelArea Area of the land parcel (hectares)Length Length (m) of any linear features/management e.g. hedges

Delivery score2 Species 1 For each species, the prescription-specific score for delivery isSpecies 2 etc applied to the land parcel: -2, 0, 1, 3

Evidence score2 Species 1 For bird species only, the prescription-specific score for evidenceSpecies 2 etc of delivery is applied to the land parcel: 1, 2

Distribution data2 Species 1 For each species where a key area is defined, each land parcelSpecies 2 etc is scored: 0 = outside key area or 1 = inside key area

Data supplied by WAG, Technical Services Division1

Data supplied by consortium partners2


27

areas could be merged with the data for Tir Gofal agreements. Technical details of the data merging process are given in section 8.7. 3.4.4 Data analysis method In the dataset supplied by the WAG GIS team, each row (n = 211,227) in the dataset refers to either a land parcel or a linear or point Tir Gofal feature (Table 16). Some land parcels within a key area but not within an a Tir Gofal agreement were included in the dataset to allow the calculation of land areas in relation to the key areas for each species. Land parcels could be categorised into eight categories:

1. Outside Tir Gofal agreements (but within key areas) 2. Improved land (no management prescriptions) - forms part of the overall agreement area but has

no optional prescription attached e.g. improved grassland, 3. Improved land with options – parcels of improved land with Tir Gofal optional prescriptions e.g.

improved grassland with conversion to semi-improved grassland. 4. Mandatory habitat e.g. unimproved acid grassland. 5. Mandatory with options – land with mandatory habitat and additional options e.g. unimproved

acid grassland with establishment of heath-land vegetation. 6. Linear data – land with linear prescriptions only e.g. hedgerow restoration. 7. Point data - land with point prescriptions only e.g. barn owl boxes. 8. Capital additions/works only - land with only capital additions (CA) or capital works (CW)

prescriptions. Table 16 Overall totals of land parcels and area (ha) in Tir Gofal dataset. Land has been categorised into eight categories. For each, the number of land parcels, total area (ha) and, for linear data, the total length (km) is shown.

Land category No. land parcels Total area (ha) Total length (km)Outside Tir Gofal agreements 2939 1,861,552Improved land (no management) 49,402 82,660Improved land with options 11,503 11,276Mandatory habitats 74,491 118,300Mandatory with options 2,960 9,039Linear data 60,819 4,223Point data 6,677 n/aCapital additions/works only 2,346 433

Total in Tir Gofal 208,198 221,708 4.223Total 211,227 2083,260 4.223 In addition, any of the land parcel categories could also have CA or CW associated with them. The original scoring of the likely delivery for each species was carried out based on individual mandatory habitats, optional prescriptions, CA and CW. Thus, the fact that land parcels can have multiple “management” introduced a certain complexity to the data and to be realistic about likely delivery we had to incorporate this into our analyses. Furthermore, upon receipt of the dataset a number of smaller issues became apparent. The following describes each “issue” and our methodology for dealing with them. 3.4.4.1 Issue 1. Mandatory habitat options with sub-category unspecified For each of the three mandatory habitat options, unimproved neutral grassland, semi-improved grassland and bogs, two sub-categories were important for species delivery. For example, whether semi-improved grassland is managed as a hay meadow (10A) or a pasture (10B) is critically important for lapwing with hay meadow being negative and pasture likely to deliver some resources for this species. However, the dataset contained many examples of these mandatory habitats with unspecified sub-categories (Table 17). In these instances, we adopted a precautionary approach and used the minimum


28

score from the options. For example, if the grayling butterfly scored 0 for semi-improved grassland managed as a hay meadow and 3 for semi-improved grassland managed as a pasture then semi-improved grassland with unspecified management scored a 0.


29

Table 17 The mandatory habitat options with unspecified sub-categories. The number of land parcels concerned and the percentage of the total are shown.

Code Mandatory habitat Sub-category No. of land parcels Percentage8A U IMP neutral grassland Hay 144 6.98B Grazed 1,116 53.18 Un-specified 840 40.0

10A S IMP grassland Hay 1167 6.210B Grazed 9258 49.010 Un-specified 8,457 44.8

12A Bog Blanket 912 46.112B Raised 35 1.812 Un-specified 1,030 52.1

U IMP = Un-improved; S IMP = semi-improved 3.4.4.2 Issue 2. Mandatory habitat options with optional prescriptions and improved land parcels with

optional prescriptions on the same land parcel An examination was made of the frequency with which combinations of mandatory habitats and optional prescriptions or improved parcels with optional prescriptions recurred in the dataset. Where any one combination occurred on more than 50 parcels of Tir Gofal land, these were re-scored with regards to delivery for each species (Table 18). Where the frequency was less than 50, these land parcels assumed the delivery scores of the mandatory habitat or in the case of improved land, the delivery scores of the first optional prescription were used. Table 18 Re-scored combinations of Tir Gofal prescriptions and options occurring on more than 50 parcels of land. The number and percentage of land parcels shown. Prescription combinations %7 40A 0.50IMP 37A 37C 0.3510A 35D 0.20IMP 24A 25B 0.1810B 35A 0.0710 35D 0.0611 36B 0.0410 35C 0.0410B 35B 0.0310A 35C 0.0314A 32B21 0.0314A 32B22 36C1 36C2 0.03

IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh

55

89837062

378149132

56

Land parcels1042733418

Improved coastal GM with conversion to S IMP GM (Lapwing/wildfowl)with increased water levels winter and spring

Description

S IMP grassland with restoration to U IMP grassland (acid/lime hay)S IMP pasture with restoration to U IMP pasture (acid/lime)S IMP haymeadow with restoration to U IMP haymeadow (acid/lime)Improved coastal GM with conversion to S IMP GM (Lapwing)

U IMP acid grass with establish heathland vegetationIMP land with woodland creation optionsS IMP haymeadow with restoration to U IMP haymeadowIMP land with US cereal, rape or linseed followed by winter stubbleS IMP pasture with restoration to U IMP pastureS IMP grassland with restoration to U IMP grasslandMarshy grassland with increased water levels

For the focal species, the prescription combinations listed in Table 18 and re-scored values are provided in Table 23 (plants) Table 45 (butterflies) and Table 56 (birds). For brown hare, none of the combinations in Table 18 required re-scoring. 3.4.4.3 Issue 3. Capital Additions (CA) and Capital Works (CW) One percent of land parcels had only CA or CW prescriptions (Table 16) and, in these cases, the land parcel assumed the species delivery score of the individual CA or CW (see Appendices). In addition, CA and CW prescriptions could also be attached to land with mandatory and optional prescriptions. In those cases, Capital prescriptions are related to the land management tasks necessary to achieve the objectives of the mandatory and optional prescriptions e.g. bunds and sluices would help to achieve increased water levels. Therefore, it assumed that the presence of a CA or CW prescription would be unlikely to increase the score of a mandatory or optional prescription if they were negative or of no consequence. Furthermore, mandatory and optional prescriptions scoring high for delivery had no potential for an increase in delivery score because they were already at maximum score. In contrast, for those scoring 1 (potential to deliver some resources) which also had CW or CA scoring 3, it was assumed that the additional management undertaken could increase the likely delivery for that species. For example,


30

unimproved acid grassland is only likely to deliver some resources for black grouse. However, parcels of unimproved acid grassland with the CW prescription heather management restoration, is likely to deliver all of the resources for the species; thus, increases in delivery scores could be applied where appropriate. 3.4.4.4 Issue 4. Multiple prescriptions on different land parcels but within the same agreement For the more mobile taxa (mainly birds and mammals), it is possible that it is not only what happens on each parcel of land that may be important for delivery but the presence of different prescriptions on different parcels of land in close proximity could mean that the combination delivers all the resource needs of a species. For example, for yellowhammer few individual prescriptions deliver all of the resource needs of the species. However, prescriptions 24A (unsprayed cereal, rape or linseed crop), 25B (winter stubble) and 18 (hedgerow restoration) each deliver some resources and importantly, they deliver resources at different times of the year with 24A, 25B and 18 providing summer food, winter food and nest sites respectively. Thus, combinations of prescriptions have the potential to improve species delivery. This assumes that mobile species can access all the resources provided within an agreement, although in some cases, for example very large agreements, this may not be the case. For each agreement, we therefore examined the maximum land parcel score for each species. When the maximum agreement score showed that the agreement was only likely to deliver some of the resource requirements for a species, we then examined the combinations of prescriptions at the agreement level that could combine to increase the delivery score. For bird species, it was possible to do this systematically because from our initial scoring we knew which prescriptions delivered resources for summer and winter food and nest sites. For other taxa, combinations of prescriptions that could deliver all resources were considered a-priori and then the dataset was examined to identify where these occurred. Where these combinations exist, the maximum agreement delivery score was increased from 1 to 3 where appropriate. Table 19 shows the number of agreements that had their maximum scores increased because of the appropriate combination of prescriptions being present. Table 19 The total number of agreements where potential delivery was increased from providing “some” to “all” of the resource requirements due to an appropriate combination of prescriptions.

3.4.4.5 Species-level analysis of the likely delivery of Tir Gofal The original research question for this study was: “What proportion of Tir Gofal agreements meet all (or some) of the critical needs of the focal species?” This was addressed using the combined data from Welsh Assembly Government’s Tir Gofal GIS data, data on key areas for species and prescriptions scores calculated as part of this study. After correcting and accounting for the complexities of the data outlined above, data were then summarised using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel. Data were examined over three spatial-scales: i) national (all-Wales), ii) for the 13 Welsh Watsonian vice-counties and, where appropriate, iii) key areas for species - to determine how beneficial parcels of land and agreements overlap with current species range. Only data for parcels containing mandatory or optional prescriptions, or capital works, were included in the analysis. Improved parcels without prescriptions, but falling within the Tir Gofal agreement (category 2 in section

Species Total agreements changed Weak evidence Strong evidenceBrown Hare 15Black grouse 175 37 138Grey partridge 255 0 255Curlew 9 1 8Lapwing 37 37 0Turtle dove 1617 545 1072Chough 435 435 0Tree sparrow 1850 460 1390Yellowhammer 1900 376 1524Corn bunting 223 0 223

Delivery increased from some to all


31

3.4.4) were omitted. The proportion of Tir Gofal land therefore omitted is shown in Figure 3. Data were summarised in three ways for each species at each spatial-scale:

1. The percentage of the total prescription area with each delivery score (D), or evidence/delivery (ED) score for birds only.

2. The percentage of prescription land parcels with each D score (or ED score for birds). 3. The percentage of agreements with different maximum D scores (or ED scores for birds). A

maximum score was calculated for each agreement. For example, if an agreement had 30 parcels of land, 10 of which were of no consequence, 15 of which potentially delivered some resources and five potentially delivered all resources, then the maximum agreement score would be 3 (potential to deliver all resources).

Improved land only

Mandatory habitat (with orwithout options)Optional prescriptions or capitalworks only

Figure 3 Proportion of all Tir Gofal land in Wales that constitutes mandatory habitats, land with optional prescriptions, and land comprising improved parcels only (and therefore omitted from subsequent analysis).

The results of these summaries for each species and spatial-scale are then presented in pie charts. For each species, up to three figures could be presented: i) national (all-Wales) level comparisons of the % area, % land parcels and % agreements with each delivery score, ii) vice-county level comparisons of the % area, % land parcels and % agreements with each delivery score and iii) comparisons of the % area, % land parcels and % agreements with each score for land inside and outwith the key areas. Note that iii) will only occur for species where it was possible to define a key area. 4 RESULTS 4.1 Resource requirements of focal species The full results of the literature reviews are shown in sections 8.1.2 (plants), 8.2.3 (butterflies), 8.3.2 (mammals) and 8.4.2 (birds). 4.2 Assessment of Tir Gofal prescriptions potentially contributing to delivery of resources for focal

species For all 3218 focal species in the study, each mandatory and optional prescription and capital option available under the Tir Goal scheme was assessed to determine the extent to which they had the potential to deliver the ecological requirements of each species. For details of the scoring methodology used, see section 3.4.4. The prescription scoring matrices are given in section 8.1.3 (plants) 8.2.4 (butterflies) 8.3.3 (mammals) and 8.4.3 (birds). For details of caveats underlying delivery scoring, see the appendices.

18 For the purpose of scoring potential delivery, common and soprano pipestrelles are considered a single species, as it is not currently possible to differentiate resource requirements with certainty.


32

4.2.1 Overview – delivery across taxa An analysis of delivery scores across all 32 focal species and the commonest 50 prescriptions covered by this review suggests that most Tir Gofal prescriptions have the potential for moderate to good delivery across the focal species. Nine prescriptions scored over 25% of the maximum possible delivery score: i.e. “3” (delivery of all requirements for a species) for all 32 species (3 x 32 = 96). Of the top nine prescriptions, six were mandatory, two optional and one capital works. 31 of the prescriptions scored over 10% of the maximum possible delivery score. Eight of the top nine prescriptions provided delivery of all requirements for five or more focal species; as did five other prescriptions ranked lower down the list. All 50 prescriptions gave some potentially positive delivery for at least one species, although seven failed to deliver all requirements for any of the focal species (Table 20). Four prescriptions totalled negative (potentially detrimental) delivery scores across all 32 focal species. Of these three were markedly negative. In general, there was little potential conflict in terms of the same options scoring highly for some focal species but negatively for others. However, four prescriptions (scrub clearance, unimproved neutral grassland, semi-improved grassland and establish heathland vegetation) each had strong potential benefits and dis-benefits across multiple species (Table 20). Accounts on delivery for individual focal species are given in the sections below. Delivery potential in respect to prescription uptake is considered in section 4.3.


33

Table 20 Summary of delivery scores across all 32 focal species and the commonest 50 Tir Gofal prescriptions.

Prescriptionprescription category

% max delivery

-2 0 1 3 Rank area

Rank land parcel

Un-improved acid grassland M 42.7 0 9 14 9 2 5Lowland coastal heath M 32.3 1 16 6 9 12 15Un-improved limestone grassland M 31.3 0 14 12 6 31 31Coastal habitat - un-improved acid grass M 30.2 0 15 11 6 48 51Marshy grassland M 30.2 0 15 11 6 5 4Uncropped fallow margins O 28.1 0 17 9 6 33 25Coastal habitat - marshy grass M 28.1 0 15 12 5 30 35Restoration of semi-improved to un-improved grass O 27.1 0 12 17 3 42 39Other invasive species control C 27.1 0 16 11 5 40 34Bog M 22.9 0 22 4 6 7 12Coastal habitat - un-improved neutral grass M 21.9 1 16 11 4 36 43Coastal habitat - semi-improved grass M 21.9 1 16 11 4 25 32Maritime cliff & slope grazed M 20.8 1 23 1 7 29 30Coastal habitat - bog M 19.8 0 23 4 5 49 50Scrub clearance C 18.8 6 4 18 4 35 22Scrub M 18.8 1 15 14 2 17 6Upland heath M 18.8 1 21 5 5 3 8Coastal habitat - scrub M 17.7 0 17 14 1 41 44Un-improved neutral grassland M 17.7 3 14 11 4 16 10Un-sprayed cereal, rape & linseed crops O 17.7 0 15 17 0 11 18Semi-improved grassland M 17.7 3 14 11 4 4 3Establish heathland vegetation O 16.7 5 15 5 7 51 45Parkland M 16.7 0 24 4 4 10 16Coastal habitat - woodland M 14.6 0 24 5 3 37 38Sand dunes M 14.6 0 26 2 4 32 37Coastal habitat - improved grass M 13.5 0 23 7 2 13 19Reedbeds, fens and swamps M 12.5 3 19 6 4 8 7Broadleaved woodland M 12.5 1 23 5 3 6 2Bracken control C 11.5 2 19 9 2 23 20Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp M 10.4 3 19 7 3 39 40Conversion of improved grass to semi-improved grass O 10.4 0 24 7 1 9 11Rhododendron control C 9.4 0 25 6 1 46 41Increase water levels O 9.4 0 25 6 1 43 47Manage improved grass - wildfowl O 9.4 0 25 6 1 38 42Orchards M 9.4 0 25 6 1 20 23Heather management C 7.3 2 19 11 0 50 49Rough grass margins O 7.3 5 18 5 4 34 27Un-sprayed root crops - winter grazed O 7.3 2 19 11 0 14 17Establish new sand dunes O 6.3 1 27 2 2 47 48Manage improved grass - breeding lapwing O 6.3 0 28 3 1 21 26Wildlife cover crop O 5.2 5 18 6 3 27 24Saltmarsh M 5.2 0 29 2 1 22 29Winter stubble O 5.2 1 24 7 0 19 28Creation or restoration of ponds C 2.1 6 14 11 1 44 33Buffer zone O 2.1 5 17 9 1 24 9Establish streamside corridors O 0.0 7 17 5 3 26 14Spring cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes O -1.0 5 18 9 0 15 21Conversion of arable land O -14.6 11 13 8 0 28 36Establish new reedbeds/swamps O -15.6 11 16 4 1 45 46Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub O -22.9 16 6 10 0 18 13


34

4.2.2 Plants The majority of Tir Gofal prescriptions are aimed at the delivery of habitats defined by their plants (e.g. woodland, acid grassland, upland heath). Unlike most mammal, bird and invertebrate species in this study, therefore, it is relatively straightforward to match prescriptions to particular vegetation (and therefore species) types. This does not always mean that prescriptions designed to deliver for these habitats are actually achieving this aim, or that they deliver the needs of individual species. These shortfalls and caveats are discussed in the following sections. 4.2.2.1 Arable plant communities A distinct set of Tir Gofal prescriptions have been designed to deliver the needs of arable plant species. The principal ones are TG24 (unsprayed cereal, rape and linseed crops) and TG29 (uncropped fallow margins). While TG29 is considered to deliver all the needs of arable species (and scores 3), TG24 delivers only some of their needs (and scores 1). This perhaps surprising scores is because: (i) within this option spring cereals are preferred (and some priority species germinate predominantly in the autumn); (ii) fertiliser can be applied to the margin (which is very detrimental to most arable species); (iii) the margin is cropped (and arable species are poor crop competitors); (iv) grassy strips are allowed to develop on margins (which provide serious competitive problems with arable species) and (v) glyphosate is not allowed to be used to control perennial species (again providing competitive species to become dominant). Tir Gofal options TG25 (retention of winter stubbles in cereal, rape and linseed crops), TG26 (spring sown cereals undersown with grasses and legumes) and TG27 (unsprayed roots followed by winter grazing) are all designed to deliver food for birds and invertebrates and not to deliver arable plant needs; they score poorly as a result or have a negative impact in establishing dense crops on field margins. Similarly, options TG28 (rough grass margins alongside cereal and root crops) and TG30 (establishment of wildlife cover crops) score negatively as they essentially encourage the conversion of prime arable plant habitat to permanent grassland. This causes arable plant populations to fail rapidly and the long-term use of these options is highly detrimental to arable plant species. For the same reasons, any prescriptions encouraging the conversion of arable land to grassland (TG31), grassland buffer zones (TG33) and woodland (TG37) score negatively. 4.2.2.2 Heathland plant communities In general, Tir Gofal prescriptions for heath and acid grassland score well, delivering most, and frequently all, the needs of the priority species. Prescriptions for lowland and coastal heath (TG6) and unimproved acid grassland (TG7) score particularly well, delivering the need for the correct levels of grazing, inability to use fertiliser or herbicide, opportunities for habitat expansion, need for prior agreement before burning. The score for upland heath (TG5) is zero because the priority species included in the study are predominantly lowland and the two upland species (pillwort and marsh clubmoss) prefer higher levels of grazing (and therefore poaching) than specified in the prescription. The prescription for Bog (TG12) scores negatively because grazing is discouraged and while permanently raised water levels are encouraged. Several Tir Gofal options (such as TG36 Increase water levels on suitable habitats and features, TG58 Bunds and sluices, and TG13 Reedbeds, swamps and fens) aim to raise water levels for the benefit of wetland birds and these might have a detrimental effect on some heathland species in some situations. These plants rely on fluctuating water tables and permanently high or permanently low water tables do not provide the open bare peat these species need, especially for seed or spore establishment. Scrub control is an essential element of heathland management. TG2 Scrub control scores therefore scores 1 but prescriptions that could potentially allow an increase of scrub on heathland (such as TG37 Establish new broadleaf woodlands and scrub) would be detrimental to heathland priority species and are scored negatively. The benefits of prescriptions for heather management (TG45) are difficult to interpret. While


35

burning (TG45A) will at least control heather it will not deliver the grazing/poaching required and therefore scores 1. Conversely, heather restoration (TG45B) provides neither burning or grazing and scores -2, but might in the longer term provide additional or new habitat for priority species should appropriate grazing regimes be implemented. 4.2.2.3 juniper Very few Tir Gofal prescriptions deliver the needs of upland juniper in the areas in which it grows, but those that do score very well. Prescription TG5 (upland heath), with its requirements for little or no grazing and the need to agree burning before it is undertaken, scores a maximum 3 for delivery. Similarly TG40 (Establish heathland vegetation on acid grassland) scores 3 due to its very low stocking rates, as does the prescription for Unimproved limestone grassland (TG9), which could be applied to some juniper populations in parts of upland Wales. Option TG7 (unimproved acid grassland) delivers some of the needs of juniper, but allows for a higher (and possibly year-round) grazing regime and therefore scores 1. Control of scrub (TG2) will have a beneficial effect juniper scrub is encouraged and if applied to invasive non-native Rhododendron (which is a threat to some populations), but will obviously have a negative impact if juniper scrub itself is removed by inexpert contractors. Using burning to control heather (TG45A) is a serious threat to juniper and scores negatively as a result. 4.2.2.4 pink waxcap The requirement of waxcap fungi for very old, completely undisturbed short grassland with no fertiliser or herbicide application means there are very few Tir Gofal prescriptions that deliver their needs. All scoring comes with the considerable caveat that such grasslands are maintained in an appropriate way for decades, if not longer, and it is very unlikely that any AES could ever keep such a guarantee. Taking this proviso into account, options have been scored according to their potential to deliver the other needs of waxcap: no inputs of fertiliser or herbicide and maintenance of a very short sward. Only three prescriptions could potentially deliver all these needs in the habitats where pink waxcap grows most frequently - TG3AP Parkland (semi improved), 8B Unimproved neutral grassland (grazed), 14/8B Coastal Grazing Marsh (neutral grassland) and 16A Maritime cliff and slope (grazed). In all these cases, another caveat applies that some fertiliser application is allowed, although it cannot be increased. If pink waxcap was present on a site on which these options were applied, fertiliser input would already have to be absolutely minimal or absent, and should never be applied in the future. Unimproved acid grasslands (TG7) and unimproved limestone grasslands (TG9) have been scored 0 as, although they may deliver same needs of this species as TG8 (neutral grassland), pink waxcap is less common in this habitat. While they can occur in both acid and calcareous grasslands, classification of these habitats by Tir Gofal project officers is likely to represent more extreme cases of these grassland types, from which pink waxcap is more likely to be absent, so only the neutral grassland option has been scored. Any options that allow conversion of neutral grassland to haymeadow (e.g. TG8A Neutral grassland (haymeadow), TG10A Semi-improved grassland (haymeadow) and 14/8A Coastal Grazing Marsh (neutral grassland - haymeadow)) have been scored negatively as long grassland is very detrimental to pink waxcap. 4.2.3 Butterflies Tir Gofal prescriptions were scored (section 3.4) according to their delivery against the species requirements summarised in Table 37 and section 8.2.3. The prescription scoring matrices and associated caveats for each focal species are provided in section 8.2.4.


36

In addition to the mandatory, optional and capital works prescriptions, which are discussed in the following sections, the obligatory requirements applying to the entire holding along with the general management recommendations and commitments for all wildlife habitats on the farm, largely stand to benefit the majority of the butterfly species (see Table 8). 4.2.3.1 marsh fritillary An analysis of prescription scores suggests that the marsh fritillary could benefit from Tir Gofal (Figure 4), with a small number of mandatory prescriptions with the potential to deliver all the critical resource requirements of the species. Around 10% of the prescriptions (optional and capital works) have some potential to deliver for the marsh fritillary and importantly, no prescriptions were deemed likely to be detrimental to the species. The key prescriptions for the marsh fritillary are those associated with the main habitats in which it occurs; notably unimproved neutral grassland (grazed) (TG8B) and marshy grassland (TG11), but also lowland coastal heath (TG6) and maritime cliff and slope (grazed) (TG16A) when in a suitable habitat context. These prescriptions have the potential for suitably light grazing levels and include additional elements that could enhance the habitat value e.g. controlling the spread of rush and prevention of scrub encroachment. 4.2.3.2 brown hairstreak An analysis of prescription scores for the brown hairstreak suggests that the species may not benefit sufficiently from Tir Gofal (Figure 4). A small number of mandatory and optional prescriptions have the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements of the species e.g. hedgerow restoration (TG18) and woodland (TG1), but an equal number of prescriptions (mandatory and capital works) are considered likely to be detrimental to the species e.g. semi-improved grassland (TG8), due to the requirement to manage encroaching scrub. Only 10% of the prescriptions have some potential to deliver for the brown hairstreak and these are largely optional e.g. woodland restoration. Hedgerow management (excluding restoration) and field boundary buffer zones are general requirements of the scheme and, as such, fall outside prescription scoring. However, the minimum amount of uncut hedge (25%) is less than that recommended for the species (which is between one-third and one-half in any one year), and there is also no requirement for rotational cutting. Surveys show annual cutting to be a major problem across its range in Wales (Smith and Williams, 2007). In the case of field buffer zones, they are too narrow (1m from hedge base) to allow suitable in-field scrub to establish. This latter deficiency may be partly offset by optional prescriptions such as rough grass margins (TG28) and uncropped fallow margins (TG29) that provide some potential for delivery. 4.2.3.3 grayling An analysis of prescription scores for the grayling suggests that the species could benefit from Tir Gofal (Figure 4), with a number of prescriptions (11% - all mandatory) that have the potential to deliver all of its critical resource requirements e.g. lowland coastal heath (TG6), unimproved acid grassland (TG7) and sand dunes (TG17). Around 15% of the prescriptions have some potential to deliver resources for the grayling; the majority of these relate to restoration prescriptions and capital works. A very small proportion of prescriptions are likely to be damaging, all of which are optional and associated with the restoration of semi-improved grassland to unimproved grassland by taking hay (35C and 35D); a method that will remove suitable egg-laying and over-wintering sites, as well as nectar sources. This good provision is, in part, a feature of the species’ more widespread habitat usage, although the stipulation of suitable grazing levels and management to prevent the extensive encroachment by bracken, scrub and coarse grasses are vital to provide all or some of the critical resources. 4.2.3.4 small pearl-bordered fritillary An analysis of prescription scores for the small pearl-bordered fritillary suggests that the species could benefit from Tir Gofal (Figure 4), with the majority of the prescriptions for the main habitats used by this


37

species e.g. woodland (grazed) (TG1B and 1C), unimproved acid grassland (TG7) and marshy grassland (TG11), considered to have the potential to deliver all of its critical resource requirements. These mandatory prescriptions could provide the extensive light grazing that is ideal for this species, breaking up dense standing trash, encouraging violet regeneration and, in woodlands in particular, preventing the development of tall, dense, ground vegetation including scrub. Around 16% of the prescriptions, e.g. marshy grassland (TG11) and restore plantations (TG37B), have some potential to deliver for the small pearl-bordered fritillary. Only a small number of prescriptions are considered likely to be detrimental to the species; these are associated with the exclusion of stock from woodland (TG1A), streamside corridors (TG38), which may lead to the closure of the woodland canopy and scrub development, and ditch casting (TG49) which is likely to damage ditch side vegetation that is used for egg-laying. 4.2.3.5 small heath An analysis of prescription scores for the small heath suggests that the species could benefit from Tir Gofal (Figure 4), with a number of prescriptions (mainly mandatory) that have the potential to deliver all of its critical resource requirements e.g. upland heath (TG5), unimproved acid grassland (TG7) and semi-improved grassland (grazed) (TG10B). As for the grayling, this good provision is, in part, a feature of the species’ more widespread habitat usage, although the stipulation of suitable grazing levels and management to prevent coarse grasses from becoming dominant and the retention of scrub patches should provide the mosaic of sward heights and lekking areas which this species needs. Around 20% of the prescriptions have some potential to deliver for the small heath (roughly equal split between mandatory, optional and capital works). As this species has more than one generation each year, and a relatively early flight period, it is possibly able to use hay meadows, particularly for nectar sources, prior to the cut. A very small proportion of prescriptions are likely to be damaging, all of which are associated with the restoration of semi-improved grassland to unimproved grassland (if previously grazed) by taking hay (35C and 35D); a method that will remove suitable egg-laying sites, nectar sources and over-wintering sites. 4.2.3.6 large heath An analysis of the prescription scores for the large heath suggests that the species could benefit from Tir Gofal (Figure 4), with a small number of prescriptions (all mandatory) that have the potential to deliver all the critical resource requirements. This small number of prescriptions is a feature of the species restricted distribution and habitat use, occurring only on upland heath (TG5) and bog habitats (TG12 and TG12B). Critically, all the prescriptions for these habitat types contain the important management elements required, e.g. water table management, grazing regimes and scrub encroachment and are therefore considered to have the potential to benefit the species. Around 5% of the prescriptions have some potential to deliver for the large heath, the majority of which are associated with capital works such as bunds and sluices (TG58A and 58B) and scrub clearance (TG53). Only one prescription (capital works), heather burning, is considered detrimental, and only if undertaken on bog habitats.


38

Figure 4 The number of Tir Gofal prescriptions and their potential of delivery of the critical resource requirements for the six focal butterfly species.

4.2.4 Mammals 4.2.4.1 Bats The prescription scoring matrices for each of the four bat species are given in 8.1.3. Explanations of the scoring methodology are given in section 3.4.1, and the main prescriptions that deliver resources for the focal bat species are summarised below. It should be noted that bats roost during daytime, fly and feed between dusk and dawn (hence few predators), and hibernate in the winter. Many Tir Gofal prescriptions have the capacity to deliver benefits for all four focal bat species (noctule, serotine, pipistrelle (common and soprano) and lesser horseshoes). The extent to which they deliver for each species varies because each species has different resource requirements. It should be noted, however, that the requirements of the four bat species chosen do not necessarily reflect the requirements of the remaining 13 species of UK bat, and so judgments about potential delivery for other species should be made only with knowledge about their resource requirements. Each bat species has very particular roosting and foraging requirements, and so the assessments of how Tir Gofal prescriptions deliver for other bat species will be different. The general Tir Gofal presumption to reduce pesticides/insecticides will generally benefit all bat species. For each focal bat species, individual prescriptions were assessed according to whether they delivered overall for all three bat requirements (roosting, foraging and commuting), for only some requirements, had no consequence, or were detrimental. Figure 5 indicates the proportions of Tir Gofal prescriptions that are detrimental, of no consequence, or deliver some or all requirements for each species.


39

Figure 5 Tir Gofal prescriptions and the extent of their potential delivery for bat focal species.

Prescriptions for mature woodland and trees all score very well for noctules and pipistrelles. However, serotine and lesser horseshoe bats are hardly ever found roosting in trees and so these prescriptions will only ever deliver some of their requirements (i.e. foraging and commuting). Parkland prescriptions, with existing mature trees, can again provide all three requirements for noctules and pipistrelles and, if grazed by stock (especially cattle) will provide enhanced foraging areas especially for serotines and lesser horseshoes. Grassland and heath prescriptions, at best, provide only foraging benefits for bats. Bats tend to avoid conventionally managed arable land, due to few invertebrate foods. However, the presumption against pesticides and artificial fertilisers (e.g. TG24) may benefit all the bat species in terms of foraging. Well-connected arable land with hedgerows and tree lines will be used for foraging and commuting by all bat species. Various wetland prescriptions have potential to deliver foraging benefits due to an increase in invertebrates, although for serotines and lesser horseshoe bats such areas must not be too open if they are to benefit. In combination with certain other prescriptions, wetlands can potentially deliver all requirements. Hedgerow restoration provides benefits for bats as commuting routes and some foraging areas for all species. Erection of bat boxes in appropriate locations may provide roosting opportunities for noctules and pipistrelles but is of no consequence for serotines and lesser horseshoes, which do not use bat boxes. Nest boxes for birds of prey should not be located near to bat roosts or foraging areas as they have been reported to prey on bats (Kent Bat Group pers. comm.). Further details of delivery potential for prescriptions and reference to caveats can be found in section 8.3.3.1. 4.2.4.2 brown hare In addition to mandatory and optional prescriptions for specific habitats, Tir Gofal includes a number of general requirements that might influence hares in the landscape. As a whole, they stand to benefit hares. The general presumption against the use of inorganic fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides and similar land treatments is advantageous; hares’ foraging behaviour has been significantly affected by agri-chemicals such as paraquat in the past (Edwards et al. 2000). The presumption against cutting, mowing


40

and topping (unless permitted specifically) also allows greater cover to be retained for hares and leverets. Maintenance of hedges, 1m buffer strips and tree retention all provide food resources and shelter. With regard to specific prescriptions, the consequences for hares are generally positive. The raw prescription scores are given in section 8.3.3. Overall, just over 40% of prescriptions within Tir Gofal stand to provide all the ecological requirements of brown hares during the year, with only 4% being detrimental (Figure 6), an early indication that Tir Gofal has considerable potential for brown hare conservation.

Figure 6 Tir Gofal prescriptions and the extent of their potential delivery for brown hare.

The impacts of specific prescriptions on hares were assessed and scored according to the rationale and caveats discussed below. It should be emphasised that the prescription for management that was being scored rather than the existing habitat, so inappropriate management could result in a low score for a habitat that is normally good for hares. Greater detail regarding the rationale and caveats underlying scores allocated to individual prescriptions is given in 8.3.3.2. In accordance with the literature review, arable and grassland options generally scored highly, with variable scores for woodland and scrub prescriptions depending on the management approach. Negatively scoring prescriptions generally involved the loss of arable habitat or prescriptions that favoured predators (such as stone walls) but offered no positive resource. 4.2.4.3 water vole 22 (16.9%) prescriptions are considered able to provide all the resource requirements for the species (Figure 7). As expected, these prescriptions were centred on the management, extension and creation of wetland and riparian habitats. Although a further 66 (50.8%) prescriptions are considered able to provide some of the resource requirements, and therefore suggesting a good provision overall for water vole in Tir Gofal, it must be remembered that these prescriptions and habitats involved do not generally support water voles directly and so are highly dependent on adjacent wetland and riparian habitat for them to have any benefit for the species. A further 38 (29.2%) prescriptions are of no consequence to water vole, being predominantly associated with habitats naturally unfavourable for the species, such as woodland. Only five (3.8%) prescriptions can be regarded as being potentially detrimental to the species, either directly, by adversely altering or reducing water vole habitat or indirectly by harbouring native and non-native predator species. Further details of the potential of the Tir Gofal scheme to impact on water vole populations are summarised in section 8.3.3.3.


41

Figure 7 Tir Gofal prescriptions and the extent of their potential delivery for water vole.

4.2.5 Birds Tir Gofal prescriptions have been scored (Table 55) according to their delivery against the species requirements identified in Table 53. 4.2.5.1 black grouse An analysis of prescription scores suggests that black grouse are well provided for by Tir Gofal (Figure 8), with a small number of prescriptions that have a strong potential of delivering the species’ year-round requirements. Around one third of prescriptions have some potential to deliver for black grouse and consideration of the combination of prescriptions makes little difference for this species (Figure 9). The key Tir Gofal prescriptions for black grouse are heather management e.g. TG5, TG45A to provide nesting habitat, and year-round food for adults. Aquatic habitats e.g. raised water levels (TG36) will provide summer food for chicks. The planting of trees and shrubs (TG63) can provide additional year-round food for adults and cover. 4.2.5.1.1 grey partridge An analysis of prescription scores suggests that grey partridge are sufficiently provided for in Tir Gofal (Figure 8) with a number of prescriptions that have a strong potential of delivering an element of the species’ requirements. The potential value of the scheme for grey partridge increases when the combination of prescriptions within an agreement is taken into account (Figure 9), particularly in respect of increasing the availability of prescriptions with strong evidence of high delivery. For example, the combination of TG24 (unsprayed cereal) with TG25B (winter stubble) has a strong likelihood of delivering two of their year-round resource requirements; summer food from TG24 and winter food from TG25 and . Combinations such as this example could become a key prescription with a lot of potential for grey partridge. A little over one quarter of prescriptions have some potential to deliver for grey partridge. A small number have a strong likelihood of being damaging e.g. the planting of trees and woodland, and the conversion of arable to pasture. The key Tir Gofal prescriptions for grey partridge provide tussocky grassland for nesting e.g. rough grass margins (TG28), invertebrate-rich summer feeding habitat e.g. unsprayed cereals (TG24) and seed-rich winter feeding habitat e.g. winter stubble following unsprayed cereals (TG25B) or wildlife cover crops (TG30).


42

4.2.5.1.2 lapwing An analysis of prescription scores suggests that lapwing is not sufficiently provided for in Tir Gofal (Figure 8). There are no prescriptions that have a strong potential of delivering any element of the species’ requirements, despite the fact that this is the only species with a prescription that has the specific aim of delivering its’ nesting habitat requirements (TG34A). A little over a third of prescriptions have weak evidence of delivering some or all of the species’ year-round requirements, and a proportion have a strong potential of being damaging e.g. the planting of trees and woodland. Consideration of the combination of prescriptions makes little difference for lapwing (Figure 9). Key grassland prescriptions for lapwing should produce, and maintain, short heterogeneous swards in an open landscape from March to the end of June, combined with prescriptions to provide slowly-drying standing water in shallow-sided features e.g. wader scrapes to provide chick-feeding habitat, prescriptions to provide invertebrate-rich short grasslands as adult feeding sites, and capital works such as rush (Juncus) control. Key arable prescriptions would provide spring-sown arable (not undersown) or fallow plots in an open landscape combined with wet features as above. All prescriptions would avoid field operations in the breeding season. 4.2.5.1.3 curlew An analysis of prescription scores suggests that curlew are not sufficiently provided for in Tir Gofal (Figure 8). There are no prescriptions that have strong evidence of delivering all of the species’ requirements. A little over a third of prescriptions have a weak evidence of delivering some or all of the species’ year-round requirements, and a proportion have a strong potential of being damaging e.g. the planting of trees and woodland. As with lapwing, the combination of prescriptions within an agreement makes little difference for curlew (Figure 9). Key prescriptions for curlew should produce, and maintain, a heterogeneous sward from March until mid July combined with prescriptions to provide invertebrate-rich feeding habitat e.g. wet features such as wader scrapes and capital works such as rush (Juncus) control. 4.2.5.1.4 turtle dove An analysis of prescriptions available in Tir Gofal suggests that turtle dove are sufficiently provided for (Figure 8), with a number of prescriptions that have strong evidence of delivering individual elements of the species’ requirements. The combination of prescriptions within an agreement makes little difference in the provision for turtle dove (Figure 9). Around one third of prescriptions have some potential to deliver for turtle dove but a small number have a strong potential of being damaging e.g. the conversion of arable to pasture. The key Tir Gofal prescriptions for turtle dove provide for scrub nesting habitat and nearby seed-rich habitat e.g. fallow margins (TG29). 4.2.5.1.5 chough An analysis of prescription scores suggests that chough is not sufficiently provided for in Tir Gofal (Figure 8). There are no prescriptions that have strong evidence of delivering all of the species’ requirements; despite two prescriptions that allow for higher grazing levels for chough. Approximately one third of prescriptions have weak evidence of delivering some of the species’ year-round requirements and a small proportion have a strong potential of being damaging e.g. the planting of trees and woodland. The combination of prescriptions makes little difference in the provision for chough (Figure 9). Key prescriptions for chough should produce, and maintain, short swards of c.5cm on invertebrate-rich habitats such as grasslands and heaths. 4.2.5.1.6 tree sparrow


43

An analysis of prescription scores suggests that tree sparrows are sufficiently provided for in Tir Gofal (Figure 8). Although no single prescription can deliver all of the year-round tree sparrow requirements with a high degree of certainty, a number of prescriptions have a strong potential of delivering some of the species’ requirements. As with grey partridge, the combination of some prescriptions with strong evidence scores increases their potential delivery for tree sparrow (Figure 9). The combination of TG3CP (arable parkland), TG24A and TG25B, which provide nesting, summer and winter food respectively, would be a good example of the potential to provide all of the species’ year-round requirements on one land parcel. A little under half of prescriptions have some potential of delivering for tree sparrow and a small number have a strong potential of being damaging e.g. the conversion of arable to pasture. Key Tir Gofal prescriptions for tree sparrow provide holes for nesting e.g. nestboxes (TG62), invertebrate-rich summer feeding habitat e.g. ponds (TG56) or wetlands (e.g. TG13) and seed-rich winter feeding habitat e.g. winter stubble following unsprayed cereals (TG25B) or wildlife cover crops (TG30). 4.2.5.1.7 yellowhammer An analysis of prescription scores suggests that yellowhammer are well provided for in Tir Gofal (Figure 8). A number of prescriptions that have strong evidence of delivering an element of the species’ requirements and, as with other arable-related species, the combination of certain key prescriptions with strong certainty scores increases their potential delivery (Figure 9). An example is the combination of TG18, TG24A and TG25B, which provide nesting habitat, summer and winter food respectively. Around one third of prescriptions have some potential to deliver for yellowhammer, although a small number have a strong potential of being damaging e.g. the planting of trees and woodland, and the conversion of arable to pasture. Key Tir Gofal prescriptions for yellowhammer provide low hedgerows or scrub e.g. TG2, invertebrate-rich summer feeding habitat e.g. rough grass margins (TG28) and seed-rich winter feeding habitat e.g. winter stubble following unsprayed cereals (TG25B) or wildlife cover crops (TG30). 4.2.5.1.8 corn bunting An analysis of prescription scores suggests that corn buntings are well provided for Tir Gofal (Figure 8). A little over a quarter of prescriptions have some potential to deliver for corn bunting and, in contrast to the rest of the focal bird species, the majority of these have strong evidence of delivering an element of the species’ requirements. The combination of prescriptions also increases the potential of the scheme for corn bunting (Figure 9), principally in terms of increasing the delivery of strong certainty prescriptions e.g. the combination of TG24A and TG25B. As with the other focal species, a small number of prescriptions have a strong potential of being damaging e.g. the planting of trees and woodland, and the conversion of arable to pasture. Key Tir Gofal prescriptions for corn bunting provide rough grassland e.g. TG28 or spring cereals for nesting habitat e.g. TG26, invertebrate-rich summer feeding habitat e.g. rough grass margins (TG28) and unsprayed cereals (TG24) and seed-rich winter feeding habitat e.g. winter stubble following unsprayed cereals (TG25B) or wildlife cover crops (TG30).


44

Figure 8 Potential for delivery of Tir Gofal prescriptions for the focal bird species.


45

Figure 9 Number of Tir Gofal prescriptions, including combinations of prescriptions within an agreement that occur in Tir Gofal, and their potential of delivery for the nine bird species.

4.3 Assessment of whether uptake of Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver resources for focal

species For each of the focal species and plant communities, assessments were made with regard to the potential of Tir Gofal to provide key resources at three scales:

1. At the national (all-Wales) level: in terms of percentages of agreements, land parcels and land area with mandatory, optional or capital prescriptions (i.e. categories 3-8 as defined in section 3.4.4).


46

2. At the vice-county level: in terms of percentages of agreements, land parcels and land area with mandatory, optional or capital prescriptions (i.e. categories 3-8 as defined in section 3.4.4) for each vice-county.

3. Within and outwith the key areas: in terms of percentages of agreements, land parcels and land area with mandatory, optional or capital prescriptions (i.e. categories 3-8 as defined in section 3.4.4) inside and outside the known core population centres.

4.3.1 Overview – delivery across taxa An all-Wales analysis of delivery scores across all 32 focal species in relation to uptake of the commonest 50 prescriptions covered by this review suggests that, while many Tir Gofal prescriptions have the potential for moderate to good delivery across the focal species (see section 4.2), uptake of some prescriptions with the highest delivery scores is limited in terms of numbers of land parcels and/or area (Table 20). Among the top nine scoring prescriptions in terms of delivery potential, only unimproved acid grassland and marshy grassland are ranked among the top ten commonest prescriptions, either in terms of area or land parcels. Among the remaining seven top scoring options, only lowland coastal heath has uptake exceeding 160 ha or 260 land parcels. A few other prescriptions with good uptake and moderately high potential delivery across taxa (including delivery of all requirements for some focal species) include bog, scrub and upland heath. Other prescriptions with high uptake but decidedly modest delivery potential across the suite of focal species include reedbeds, fens and swamps, broadleaved woodland and conversion of improved grass to semi-improved grass. Buffer zones, one of the most widespread prescriptions (ranked ninth in terms of land parcels) had poor delivery across the suite of focal species; being deemed potentially detrimental to five, of no consequence to 17 and delivering all the requirements of just one species. Of the three prescriptions with overall markedly negative potential delivery scores, establish broadleaved woodland and scrub, had reasonably high uptake, with over 720 ha and 1800 land parcels (Table 20). Regional (vice-county or key area) analyses were not deemed appropriate for the overview of delivery across taxa due to the very different distributions of the focal species. For detailed results on each focal species, see the sections below. 4.3.2 Plants For all plants in this study, an assessment has been made of the proportion of Tir Gofal whole agreements, parcels of land, and total land area that deliver at least some prescriptions that are beneficial or that are harmful to the species in question. 4.3.2.1 Arable plant communities There has been an excellent uptake of prescriptions and options designed to deliver the needs of arable plants within Tir Gofal (Figure 10). Throughout Wales, 90.3% of Tir Gofal agreements include some prescriptions that are of some benefit to arable plants, although of these, only 2% include prescriptions that deliver all their requirements. While this level of uptake is very encouraging, priority arable species are localised within the farming landscape (they are largely confined to the edges and gateways of fields with appropriate soil conditions) and dispersal of their seed between fields and farms is very limited. To asses the impact of Tir Gofal, therefore, it is much more appropriate to examine smaller units than delivery by overall agreements, namely the area of land under prescriptions, and the parcels of land within each agreement. The most important prescriptions designed for arable species provide appropriate management on field margins; only very rarely are whole fields included. For this reason, the total area of land under management beneficial to arable plants within Tir Gofal throughout Wales is very small, just 2.2% (3033 ha, see Figure 10). The vast majority of this area is only delivering some of the needs of arable plants (mainly through option TG24 Unsprayed cereal, rape and linseed crops); only 84 ha (0.1%) of Tir Gofal land is delivering all the needs of arable plants (mainly TG29 (uncropped fallow margins).


47

More worryingly, there is almost an identical area (3072 ha or 2.2%) of land throughout Wales that is detrimental to arable species. This mainly comes through the uptake of prescription TG26 (spring-sown cereals undersown with grasses and legumes). Arable plants are often confined to individual fields or groups of fields. When looking at individual parcels of land (or fields) that come under different prescriptions (Figure 10 and Figure 11) a slightly better picture emerges. More parcels of land are under beneficial prescriptions than detrimental ones. Some of the needs of arable species are being delivered by 57441 parcels of land throughout Wales, although all their needs are still only being delivered on just 260 parcels of land. When comparing beneficial and detrimental delivery for national (all-Wales) area and parcels, it appears that although there are more parcels of land under stewardship beneficial to arable plants, they are of a much smaller area. The large discrepancy between national (all-Wales) % agreements, parcels and area in delivering arable plant requirements is due to the small size of the land (i.e. field margins) on which these prescriptions apply.

Figure 10 National (all-Wales) percentage of Tir Gofal agreements, individual parcels of land and land by area that deliver Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting arable plant species.

There is considerable variation in the number of parcels of land under Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting arable plant species within separate vice-counties (Figure 11). Pembrokeshire, a classic area for arable plants, has the greatest proportion of parcels delivering beneficial options (66.5% within the county), with Carmarthenshire (47.9%), Ceredigion (43.8%) and Breconshire (41.3%) following close behind. Given the work undertaken in Pembrokeshire to improve the uptake of arable Tir Gofal options this is encouraging. Unfortunately however, Glamorgan, another county rich in arable plant species, does not feature in this list. The county with the lowest proportion of options beneficial to arable plants is Caernarfonshire (8.1%); although the Lleŷn peninsula is rich in arable plant species, it is only a small proportion of a large, mostly pastoral county. When looking at prescriptions delivering all the needs of arable plant, all counties have a tiny proportion; Monmouthshire has the highest at 1.3% of parcels, but Caernarfon, Ceredigion, Meirionnydd and Radnor have none.


48

Figure 11 Percentage of parcels of land in each vice-county that deliver Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting arable plant species.

Arable plant Key Areas - have little influence on the uptake of beneficial Tir Gofal arable options. There is almost no difference between the proportion of agreements and land parcels inside and outside the Key Area, although there is a marginally greater proportion of land area inside the Key Area, perhaps indicating that larger fields are being taken into prescriptions inside Key Areas. The need for, ease of, and wider benefits for farm biodiversity of taking up arable options has been widely publicised and encouraged through training courses, lectures and circulation of literature. Either these are having little effect or, perhaps more likely given the high level of agreement take-up, only a few land parcels are being placed under these options, and these are generally tiny fragments of land. 4.3.2.2 Heathland plant communities Heathland is a very distinct and well-understood habitat type. Not only are there specific Tir Gofal prescriptions designed to improve heathland management, the habitat is readily identifiable in the field


49

and appropriate prescriptions can be allocated accordingly. For these reasons, the uptake of options potentially beneficial to heathland priority plant species are very good throughout Wales (Figure 12). Overall, 45.5% of Tir Gofal agreements include prescriptions that deliver some needs of heathland plants, while an encouraging 30.7% deliver all of their needs. Individual parcels of heathland are likely to be very large, so there is many fewer of these and a lower proportion of them deliver heathland plant requirements; 12.7% of parcels deliver some needs, and 6.7% deliver all needs. More worryingly, 5.3% of parcels throughout Wales are potentially detrimental to priority heathland plant species. Again, for what are comparatively immobile plant species the area of land that falls under appropriate agreements is extremely important (if prescriptions are not being delivered on the sites where these priority plants grow, they cannot move easily to other areas). The area of Tir Gofal land delivering all the needs of heathland priority plants throughout Wales is very high, 29259 ha (21.0% of the total Tir Gofal area), while that delivering some of their needs is excellent, at 19775 ha (14.2% of the total). The large area delivering detrimental management (12380 ha or 8.9%) must also be noted.

Figure 12 National (all-Wales) percentage of Tir Gofal agreements, individual parcels of land and land by area that deliver Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting heathland plant species.

Not surprisingly for a habitat that is unequally distributed throughout Wales, there is considerable variation between the uptake of Tir Gofal options beneficial to heathland priority plant species amongst vice-counties in Wales (see Figure 13). Highest overall delivery is achieved in Radnorshire (22.8% of the Tir Gofal area in the county delivering some needs of heathland plant species, 30.6% delivering all of their needs), followed by Caernarfonshire (12.0% some, 31.3% all), Breconshire (19.8% some, 18.5% all), Denbighshire (15.1% some, 22.9% all) and Ceredigion (21.0% some, 16.7% all). All these are counties rich in heathland (Jones, 2003). In eastern Wales, Monmouthshire and Flintshire have very little heathland and consequently lower proportions of prescriptions delivering for heathland plants (2.4% some and 1.9% all for Monmouthshire and 5.8% some and 9.1% all for Flintshire). However, exceptions exist and the low proportion of Tir Gofal area for heathland plants in Pembrokeshire (15.2% some and 2.4% all). With its high density of lowland coastal heath it is difficult to account for this, especially given the focus on the conservation of these habitats in this county. It may be that most surviving heaths are in formally protected areas and there is little benefit from including them in the Tir Gofal scheme. These arguments may also apply to Glamorgan, which also has a relatively low delivery of Tir Gofal options for heathland plants (17.4% some and 13.2% all), but, in this case, the heathland interest is mainly confined to the Gower peninsula, a relatively small area compared to the rest of the county. It is also interesting to note the high proportion of detrimental prescriptions in some counties, Meirionnydd is the worst of these (14.7%) followed by Montgomery and Radnorshire (both 13.5%), Denbighshire (11.9%) and Ceredigion (11.1%). In most cases, the majority of detrimental Tir Gofal prescriptions come from options TG12 (Bog) and TG13 (Reedbeds, swamps and fens). Both these potentially raise and stabilise water levels, and the former discourages gazing, practices that do not encourage priority heathland species when found in these habitats.


50

Figure 13 Percentage of Tir Gofal land area within each vice-county that deliver Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting heathland plant priority species.

It may be because heathland is such a widespread (if not necessarily common) habitat within Wales that there is little preferential uptake of beneficial prescriptions within heathland plant Key Areas. Although a slightly larger proportion of agreements including prescriptions delivering all the needs of heathland species are found within Key Areas (and consequently there is a larger area of these prescriptions on the ground), these differences are only marginal and the Key Areas do not seem to have considerably improved the uptake of options beneficial to heathland plants. This may largely be because Pembrokeshire has the largest proportion of the Heathland Key Area, but is one of the poorest counties for uptake of these options. The targeting of beneficial options in these Key Areas is vital to improve their uptake. 4.3.2.3 juniper As noted in section 4.2.2.3, very few Tir Gofal prescriptions deliver the needs of upland juniper in the areas in which it grows. Because the major prescription that does deliver (TG5, Upland heath), is a widespread habitat and abundant in some areas, quite a large proportion of Tir Gofal agreements (13.8%) include prescriptions that deliver the needs of juniper throughout Wales (Figure 14). The main prescription delivering some of the needs of juniper (TG7 unimproved acid grassland) is even more widespread, hence 45.5% of Tir Gofal agreements are seen to deliver some needs of juniper throughout Wales.


51

Interestingly, a very small number of land parcels deliver a very large area of land that meet all or some of the needs of juniper (Figure 14). Maximum delivery is achieved on just 3036 parcels of land, but this amounts to 25954 ha of land (18.6% of the Tir Gofal area throughout Wales), while delivery of some requirements is achieved by 16168 parcels of land that amount to 30770 ha (22.0%) of land (these parcels are obviously much smaller on average than those delivering all juniper needs). Throughout Wales, only a very few parcels of land (3381), and only a very small area (1461 ha) are having a negative effect on juniper. This very encouraging result is only tempered by the need for farmers and Tir Gofal officers to be aware of the extremely damaging effect burning (which is allowed with prior consent in prescriptions TG5 and TG7) can have on juniper populations.

Figure 14 National (all-Wales) percentage of Tir Gofal agreements, individual parcels of land and land by area that deliver Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting juniper.

There is a very clear pattern to the area of Tir Gofal prescriptions that benefit Juniper in different vice-counties (see Figure 15). Counties with a large proportion of upland heathland clearly deliver more benefits for this species. Caernarfonshire and Merionnyddshire have by far the highest proportion. In Caernarfonshire, 31.6% and 32.8% of Tir Gofal area delivering some and all Juniper requirements respectively and in Merionnyddshire 27.3% and 36.3% of Tir Gofal area delivering some and all requirement respectively. Other counties with large upland areas, such as parts of Denbighshire, Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire, all have large proportions of land delivering at least some of the needs of Juniper, while lowland southern counties (Pembrokeshire, Glamorgan and Monmouthshire) have very little.


52

Figure 15 Percentage of Tir Gofal land area within each vice-county that deliver Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting juniper.

Of all plant species in this study, juniper show's the clearest pattern of improved uptake of beneficial Tir Gofal options within its Key Area (Figure 16). This is partly because it has the most precisely and clearly defined Key Area. It therefore has the smallest total area and incorporates the least variation in habitat diversity, being dominated by upland heath and unimproved acid grassland. Because the Key Area is so precisely defined, it includes just 48 Tir Gofal agreements covering 2187 ha of land. All these agreements include prescriptions that deliver at least some needs of juniper, and a remarkable 93.8% deliver all its needs. The Key Area includes 240 parcels of land that are of least some benefit to juniper, and these total 1858 ha of land (85.0% of the Tir Gofal area in the Key Area). These parcels are therefore of considerable size, but are not enormous and it is encouraging that quite a few parcels are included (if there were very few but huge parcels delivery of beneficial prescriptions for juniper could quickly be threatened by changes in farm ownership or withdrawal from Tir Gofal).


53

Figure 16 Delivery of Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting juniper at agreement, land parcel and area levels within and outside juniper Key Areas.

4.3.2.4 pink waxcap As described in 4.2.2.4, only three Tir Gofal prescriptions deliver the complete needs of pink waxcap, and even for these there are severe caveats over their requirements for grassland to be undisturbed for decades or longer. Prescription TG8B (Unimproved neutral grassland, grazed) is the most widespread of the three. Of the prescriptions that deliver some of the needs of this species, TG10B (Semi-improved grassland, grazed option) is most widespread. These two prescriptions dominate Tir Gofal delivery for this species. Not surprisingly, national (all-Wales) delivery of the needs of this species is limited (Figure 17). Although a large proportion of agreements include at least some prescriptions that deliver some or all of this species needs (67.7%), it is more appropriate to examine the proportion of parcels and area of land for this relatively non-mobile species. Only 0.9% of parcels deliver all the needs of this species, and these parcels are small areas, amounting to just 1316 ha of land. Similarly, just 10.7% of parcels deliver some of the needs of this species, and these are small, amounting to just 13371 ha of land. Importantly, there are almost as many detrimental prescriptions as beneficial ones (8.5%, amounting to 10538 ha of land), mainly resulting from TG10 (Semi-improved grassland).


54

Figure 17 National (all-Wales) percentage of land by Tir Gofal agreements, individual parcels of land and area that deliver Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting pink waxcap.

There is considerable variation in delivery for this species between vice-counties (Figure 18). The largest proportion of area for delivery of all or some of its needs is found amongst the predominantly lowland southern counties of Pembrokeshire (30.7% or 662 ha), Glamorgan (26% or 1126 ha) and Monmouthshire (21.1% or 2058 ha), although the largest actual beneficial area is delivered in Ceredigion (15.5% or 2256 ha). These latter two counties have a high occurrence of pink waxcap records, although Radnorshire, Breconshire, Caernarfonshire and Monmouthshire are just as rich in waxcap records. The smallest proportion of areas are in Merionnyddshire (4.3% or 1267 ha), and, unfortunately, Radnorshire (6.1% or 411 ha) and Caernarfonshire (6.8% or 1731 ha). The single smallest actual area is delivered in Flintshire (10.1% or 116 ha). Interestingly, three counties have a larger proportion of detrimental prescriptions than they do beneficial ones. These are Montgomery (1.4 times as many detrimental as beneficial options), Anglesey (2.1 times as many) and Radnorshire (2.2 times as many). Given that this latter county is one of the richest for pink waxcap, this cancelling out of any beneficial options with harmful ones is especially worrying.


55

Figure 18 Percentage of Tir Gofal land area within each vice-county that deliver Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting pink waxcap.

Lower plants are notoriously ignored by conservation measures, especially when they occur within agricultural productive landscapes. Waxcaps, with their eye-catching colours and appeal to non-conservationists, do fair better than other groups and the need for their protection has been the subject of much publicity and promotion. Despite this, no Tir Gofal prescriptions are designed specifically to protect them so the uptake of such measures cannot be promoted in Key Areas for this species. This species is also widespread (if very sparsely scattered) and there is therefore no apparent additional uptake of the few options that can deliver their needs inside and outside of pink waxcap Key Areas (Figure 19). There are, in fact, fewer agreements that deliver at least some benefits for this species inside Key Areas than outside. Although the number of parcels of land is very similar inside and outside Key Areas, there is at least a slightly higher proportion of land area under beneficial prescriptions inside Key Areas than outside, although even this is tempered by the fact that there is a higher proportion in area of detrimental prescriptions too. It is clear that, if the needs of this species are to be addressed through Tir Gofal (a mechanism for which it is eminently suitable), specific prescriptions need to be developed to address its needs and uptake of these options must be targeted inside Key Areas.


56

Figure 19 Delivery of Tir Gofal prescriptions affecting pink waxcap at area, land parcel and agreement level within and outside pink waxcap Key Areas.

4.3.3 Butterflies 4.3.3.1 marsh fritillary There appears to be adequate provision for the marsh fritillary in Tir Gofal, with the main habitats that this species uses covered by mandatory prescriptions that have the potential to deliver all of its critical resource requirements (section 4.2.3.1). In terms of uptake at the national (all-Wales) level, over half of the agreements in Tir Gofal (56%) contain these prescriptions whilst 14% contain those with some potential for delivery. In terms of land area under prescription, 11% of land has the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements and a negligible amount has the potential for some delivery and is restricted to 4.5% of land parcels. These are principally linear features with no assigned hectarage value (Figure 20).


57

Figure 20 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the marsh fritillary butterfly.

At a vice-county level, the variation in uptake of prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the critical resources, at agreement, land parcel and land area level, is broadly similar and is a reflection of the distribution of the main habitat types with which this species is associated (vice-county land parcel data is therefore not shown) (Figure 21). Those counties holding a larger proportion of the Welsh resource of these habitats have a higher uptake of the associated mandatory prescriptions. Marshy grasslands, for example are particularly prevalent in the South Wales Coalfield; Carmarthenshire and Glamorgan collectively include over one third of the total area of this habitat in Wales (Jones et al., 2003). Obviously, the degree to which Tir Gofal can help to protect the marsh fritillary will be a feature of the proportion of the Welsh resource of its main habitats that are under Tir Gofal agreements. As an indication, Carmarthenshire has 6600 hectares of lowland purple moor-grass and rush pasture (19% of the Welsh resource) (Jones et al., 2003) and 1974 hectares of this are in Tir Gofal agreements (30%). Although the marsh fritillary will not use all of this grassland, the fact that a reasonable proportion should be under favourable management is encouraging. There appears to be low uptake of the optional prescriptions that could benefit the marsh fritillary. As an example, in Carmarthenshire, uptake is restricted to the restoration of semi-improved grassland to unimproved grassland by grazing (TG35A) and the area covered by this prescription is only 28 hectares.


58

Figure 21 At the vice-county level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores, and the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for the marsh fritillary butterfly.

At the key area level there is very little difference in the proportion of agreements and proportion of land parcels covered by prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements, inside and outside the key area (Figure 22). However, the proportion of land area covered by these prescriptions inside the key area (20%) is double that outside the key area (9%).

Figure 22 At key area level, the percentage of agreements with different maximum prescriptions scores, and the percentage of land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores, for land within the defined key area (green) and outside the key area for the marsh fritillary.


59

These results suggest that Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for the marsh fritillary as the scheme contains suitable prescriptions and uptake is good in key areas. 4.3.3.2 brown hairstreak There does not appear to be sufficient provision for the brown hairstreak in Tir Gofal with the general scheme requirements for hedgerow management falling short of that required, and detrimental management stipulated within grassland prescriptions (section 4.2.3.2). In terms of uptake at a national (all-Wales) level, the majority of agreements in Tir Gofal (95%) contain prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements of the brown hairstreak; this is due to the widespread undertaking of hedgerow restoration. These prescriptions cover 43% of land parcels in Tir Gofal but only 9% of land area; this is because hedgerow restoration is recorded as length data and so does not form part of the analysis of land area. There are no agreements that only contain prescriptions considered likely to be detrimental to the species, however, 16% of land area is covered by these prescriptions; this is nearly double the area that is covered by beneficial prescriptions (Figure 23).

Figure 23 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the brown hairstreak butterfly.

At vice-county level, there is regional variation (Figure 24). The southern Welsh counties, in general, have a higher proportion of land parcels covered by prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements, than the northern counties. This is explained by analysis of the hedgerow restoration data; the highest proportion of this work is being undertaken in Carmarthenshire, the species stronghold, closely followed Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, which are the other main areas for this species (Figure 25). However, these southern Welsh counties, and Carmarthenshire in particular, also have more land covered by prescriptions likely to be detrimental to the species (e.g. cutting of encroaching in-field blackthorn and scrub clearance), than the northern counties, with the exception of Anglesey; this is a reflection of the distribution of unimproved and semi-improved grassland within Wales.


60

Figure 24 At the vice-county level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal the with the different maximum prescription scores, the percentage of the total land parcels with the different prescriptions scores and the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for the brown hairstreak butterfly.


61

Figure 25 The percentage of hedgerow restoration work being undertaken in Tir Gofal, within each vice-county, as a percentage of the scheme total.

The proportions of agreements and the proportions of land holdings, with different delivery scores, inside and outside the key area, are little different. However, there is a difference in the proportion of land covered by the different delivery scores inside and outside the key area; the figures inside the key area are double those outside the key area (Figure 26).

Figure 26 At key area level, the percentage of agreements with different maximum prescriptions scores, and the percentage of land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores, for land within the defined key area (shaded) and outside the key area for the brown hairstreak butterfly.

These results suggest that Tir Gofal does not currently contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for the brown hairstreak and indeed may be detrimental to the species. This is due to the inappropriate general scheme guidance in relation to hedgerows and the detrimental effects associated with in-field scrub management, of which there is high uptake, particularly within the key areas. 4.3.3.3 grayling There appears to be adequate provision for the grayling in Tir Gofal, with the main habitats that this species uses covered by mandatory prescriptions that have the potential to deliver all of its critical


62

resource requirements (section 4.2.3.3). In terms of uptake at the national (all-Wales) level, approximately half of the agreements in Tir Gofal (52%) contain these prescriptions whilst 22% contain those with some potential for delivery (Figure 27). In terms of land area under prescription, approximately one-third of land has the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements and a negligible amount has the potential for some delivery and is restricted to 7% of land parcels. These are principally linear features with no assigned hectarage value. The analysis of the data at the vice-county level (Figure 28) shows broadly similar patterns as that at the national (all-Wales) level. There is some regional variation, Anglesey, Brecon, Caernarfon, Meirionnydd and Radnor have over 30% of land in prescriptions considered to have the potential to deliver all of the resource requirements. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Carmarthen, Flintshire and Monmouth have less than 20% of land covered by such prescriptions. The regional variation is likely to be a reflection of the distribution of the more extensive habitats, covered by beneficial prescriptions, such as unimproved acid grassland (TG7), lowland heathland (TG6) and semi-improved grassland (TG10B). These results suggest that Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for the grayling as the scheme contains suitable prescriptions and uptake is good both nationally and at vice-county level.

Figure 27 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the grayling butterfly.


63

Figure 28 At the vice-county level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for the grayling butterfly.

4.3.3.4 small pearl-bordered fritillary There appears to be good provision for the small pearl-bordered fritillary in Tir Gofal, with the majority of the main habitats used by this butterfly covered by mandatory prescriptions which have the potential to deliver all of its critical resource requirements (section 4.2.3.5). In terms of uptake at the national (all-Wales) level, the majority of agreements (71%) contain these prescriptions whilst 10% contain those with some potential for delivery (Figure 29). In terms of land area under prescription, approximately one-third of land has the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements and a negligible amount has the potential for some delivery and is restricted to 6% of land parcels. These are principally linear features with no assigned hectarage value. There are no agreements that only contain prescriptions likely to be detrimental to the butterfly; however, these prescriptions cover 8% of the land area under prescription in Tir Gofal.

Figure 29 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly.


64

The analysis of the data at vice-county level (Figure 30) shows broadly similar patterns as that at the national (all-Wales) level. There is some regional variation, Anglesey, Brecon, Glamorgan and Radnor have a greater proportion of land than the national figure (> 34%), covered by prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements, whilst at the opposite end of the spectrum, counties such as Monmouth, Flint and Pembrokeshire have less than 20% of land in such prescriptions. These latter three counties, and also Carmarthen, also have a greater proportion of their land (over double the national figure) covered by prescriptions with the potential to be detrimental to the species; the main prescription involved being ungrazed woodland (TG1A). These results suggest that Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for the small pearl-bordered fritillary as the scheme contains suitable prescriptions and uptake is good nationally and, in general, at the vice-county level.

Figure 30 At the vice-county level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly.

4.3.3.5 small heath There appears to be good provision for the small heath in Tir Gofal, with the main habitats which this species uses covered by mandatory prescriptions which have the potential to deliver all of its critical resource requirements (section 4.2.3.5). In terms of uptake at the national (all-Wales) level, approximately half of the agreements in Tir Gofal (52%) contain these prescriptions whilst 32% contain those with some potential for delivery (Figure 31). In terms of land area under prescription, approximately half (49%) of land under prescription has the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements and 20% has the potential for some delivery, accounting for 19% of land parcels. The analysis of the data at vice-county level (Figure 32) shows broadly similar patterns as that at the national (all-Wales) level. There is some regional variation, which is likely to be a reflection of the distribution of extensive upland heathland and unimproved grassland in Wales, e.g. higher percentages of prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the critical resources in Caernarfon and Meirionnydd


65

than in Carmarthen and Monmouthshire. However, Carmarthen, Monmouthshire and Pembrokeshire have relatively large areas of their land (25-37%) covered by prescriptions with the potential to deliver some resources. A closer look at the data set for Carmarthenshire reveals that around 40% of these prescriptions are for marshy grassland (TG11) and 37% for semi-improved grassland and therefore have the potential to deliver beneficial resources for the species.

Figure 31 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the small heath butterfly.

Figure 32 At the vice-county level, a) the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal the with the different maximum prescription scores and b) the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for the small heath butterfly.

These results suggest that Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for the small heath as the scheme contains suitable prescriptions and uptake is good both at a national (all-Wales) and at the vice-county level.


66

4.3.3.6 large heath There appears to be adequate provision for the large heath in Tir Gofal, with the main habitats which this species uses covered by mandatory prescriptions which have the potential to deliver all of its critical resource requirements (section 4.2.3.6). In terms of uptake at the national (all-Wales) level, approximately 20% of the agreements in Tir Gofal contain these prescriptions whilst 1% contain those with some potential for delivery (Figure 33). The majority of the land parcels in Tir Gofal are covered by prescriptions that are of no consequence to the large heath. However, this is a feature of its restricted distribution and its occupation of large tracts of upland heath and bog because 27% of the land area in Tir Gofal is covered by prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements of this species. 4.5% of land area is covered by prescriptions with the potential to deliver some benefits and these prescriptions are primarily those concerned with the restoration of heathland vegetation on acid grassland (TG40A).

Figure 33 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the large heath butterfly.

At a vice-county level, the variation in uptake of prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the critical resource requirements, at both agreement, land parcel and area level, is a reflection of the distribution of the main habitat types used by this species (Figure 34). Those counties holding a larger proportion of the Welsh resource of blanket bog and wet upland heath e.g. Meirionnydd and Caernarfon (Jones et al, 2003), have high proportions of the associated beneficial mandatory prescriptions. Uptake of the optional prescription to restore heathland vegetation on acid grassland (TG40A), which has some potential to benefit the species, is also higher in these counties. The key area shows a very close relationship between the distribution of the large heath and the greatest percentage of both agreement and land area covered by prescriptions with the potential to deliver all the resource requirements for this species (Figure 35). There are nearly three times more agreements containing prescriptions with the potential to deliver all the resource requirements inside the key area (57%) than outside the key area (17%) and the proportion of land inside the key area that is covered these prescriptions (45%) is roughly double that of the land outside the key area (24%). The same is true for prescriptions with the potential to deliver some of the critical resources (principally heathland restoration).


67

Figure 34 At the vice-county level, a) the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal the with the different maximum prescription scores and b) the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for the large heath butterfly.

Figure 35 At key area level, the percentage of agreements with different maximum prescriptions scores, and the percentage of land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores, for land within the defined key area (shaded) and outside the key area for the large heath butterfly.

These results suggest that Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for the large heath as the scheme contains suitable prescriptions and uptake is good in the key areas.


68

4.3.4 Mammals 4.3.4.1 Bats The system for scoring the different Tir Gofal prescriptions’ potential delivery of ecological requirements for the four focal bat species identified many similarities for the four species, at least at the level of detail permitted by the prescription descriptions (section 4.2.4.1). The greatest similarity was observed between the scoring of lesser horseshoe bat and serotine bat, which took identical scores. Both these species utilise buildings or underground structures rather than trees for roosting. The scoring of noctule and the combined pipistrelle species also showed a high degree of overlap. Both these species are known to use trees as roosts (although pipistrelles, like serotine bats and lesser horseshoe bats are often associated with buildings). The main distinction between the scoring of prescriptions for noctules and pipistrelles was that certain prescriptions were considered to have potential value as commuting habitat for the lower flying pipistrelles, but not for noctules. The scoring rationale is given in greater depth in section 8.3.3.1 and the analyses below focus on the effect of uptake of the different prescriptions in determining overall potential delivery. 4.3.4.1.1 lesser horseshoe bat The majority (98%) of current Tir Gofal agreements include at least one prescription with potential to deliver at least some of the ecological requirements of the lesser horseshoe bat (see above). No agreements undertook prescriptions that met all the species’ requirements because of the absence of appropriate prescriptions for scoring in the scheme. Consequently, no combination of scheme prescriptions will deliver all of the species’ resource requirements (Figure 36). Lesser horseshoe bats require built or underground structures for roosting but prescriptions for the promotion of biodiversity in such structures are not available. Less than 1% of prescription area was judged likely to be detrimental.

Figure 36 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores, the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the lesser horseshoe bat.

Across Wales, the distribution of prescription land delivering some ecological requirements was relatively even. Analysis of prescription delivery at vice-county scale showed little variation in the high proportion of agreements that included at least one prescription capable of delivering some of the species’ ecological requirements (Figure 37). It was lowest in Meirionnydd, Caernarfon and Pembrokeshire (92.7% – 93.8%) but reached approximately 100% of agreements in Anglesey, Brecon, Denbigh, Flint, Gwent, Montgomery and Radnor.


69

Figure 37 At vice-county level, the proportion of agreements in Tir Gofal (left) and land parcels in Tir Gofal (right) with the different prescriptions scores for the lesser horseshoe bat.

Overall, nearly 100% of area based (as opposed to linear) prescription land was considered to have the potential to provide some lesser horseshoe bat requirements. Less than 1% of prescription area was judged likely to be of no consequence. This trend was highly consistent among the constituent vice-counties and the very small area of “no consequence” prescription land occurred in only three counties (Glamorgan, Meirionnydd and Pembrokeshire). The parcel analysis, which provides further detail on the extent of potential delivery within agreements and includes linear features such as hedgerows and others with no designated area such as nest and bat box projects was also dominated by parcels likely to provide some benefits (82%). However, the parcel analysis included a higher proportion of no consequence prescription land (18%) than in the agreement and area analyses and a very small proportion of potentially detrimental parcels (0.2%). There was greater variation in the extent to which individual vice-counties delivered benefits at parcel scale (Figure 37ii). The proportion of parcels with the potential to deliver some requirements was lowest in Pembrokeshire (69.5%) and highest in Radnor (92.1%). Potentially detrimental parcels were reported in all but two of the vice-counties (Anglesey and Pembrokeshire), but represented no more than 1% of parcels in any location. The distribution of lesser horseshoe bat across Wales falls into distinct concentrations (see distribution map at Appendix 3, Figure 87). However, the proportion of agreements achieving ‘some benefits’ or rated ‘of no consequence’ were very similar inside and outside species key areas (98% some benefit, 2% of no consequence). Similarly, there was no difference in the proportion of prescription land area likely to achieve some benefit (nearing 100% inside and outside the key area). The parcel analysis showed marginally lower delivery of potential benefit within the key area (78%) compared to outside (83%). 4.3.4.2 noctule bat Over 75% of current agreements include at least one prescription that has potential to meet all noctule requirements, and a further 22% have potential to deliver some of their requirements. The remainder were considered likely to be of no consequence but not detrimental to the species (Figure 38).


70

Figure 38 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the noctule bat.

Across Wales, the distribution of prescription land with the potential to deliver all of the species’ requirements shows wide variation among vice-counties, ranging from 43.8% of agreements in Pembrokeshire to 94.3% in Monmouthshire. In the majority of vice counties, more than 65% of agreements have at least one prescription or combination of prescriptions with the potential to deliver all noctule bat requirements. Agreements considered of no consequence to noctule bats were found in six vice-counties, but the proportion of no consequence agreements was low everywhere, never reaching more than approximately 5%, e.g. Caernarfon, Meirionnydd, (Figure 39).


71

Figure 39 At the vice-county level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal the with the different maximum prescription scores, the percentage of the total land parcels with the different prescriptions scores and the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for the noctule bat.

In terms of national land area, the area given to prescriptions with the potential to deliver all noctule resource requirements approaches 94%, with all but a tiny proportion of the remainder likely to deliver some benefits. The proportion of the total prescription area given to prescriptions with the potential to deliver all of the species requirements was very high (approximately ≥ 90%) in all but two vice-counties. The two exceptions were Anglesey (76.1%) and Radnor (82.4%). Analysis of parcels showed that 70% had potential to deliver only some, rather than all, resource requirements for noctules. The remaining parcels are likely to be of no consequence (16.5%) or deliver all requirements (13.5%). The vice county parcel analysis mirrored the national trend in the main, although Pembrokeshire and Anglesey had particularly high numbers of “no consequence” parcels. Analyses of agreement, parcel and area data found potential delivery inside and outside the locations defined as noctule bat key areas to be very similar. 4.3.4.3 pipistrelle bats As can be seen from Figure 40, the majority (76%) of current agreements include prescriptions that have potential to meet all pipistrelle requirements, 23% meet some requirements, and 1% of agreements are of no consequence to the species.

Figure 40 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal with the different maximum prescription scores and the percentage land parcels and land area with the different prescription scores for the pipistrelle bats.


72

As is the case for noctule, there is wide variation among vice-counties in the proportion of agreements with the potential to provide all of the species’ ecological requirements (Figure 41). In the majority of vice-counties, more than 60% of agreements may deliver all ecological needs, but delivery for the species in Pembrokeshire appears much lower (43.8%). However, in all vice-counties, nearly all agreements have potential to deliver at least some pipistrelle requirements, and detrimental agreements are recorded only in Glamorgan, at a negligible level (0.4%). The national proportion of prescription land area occupied by prescriptions with potential to deliver all pipistrelle roosting, foraging and commuting requirements is very high (94%). With the exception of Anglesey (76.1%) and Radnor (82.4%), the proportion of vice-county prescription land area is consistently greater or equal to 90% (Figure 41). In contrast, the parcel analysis shows the highest proportion of parcels (78%) delivering some rather than all, pipistrelle requirements (Figure 41). This indicates that while the majority of agreements do contain complementary roosting, commuting and foraging resources, the balance of these resources is not even. For example, area prescriptions were strongly weighted towards the delivery of foraging habitat. The vice-county analysis of parcel data was similar to the national trend. Pembrokeshire was an exception, having the largest proportion of parcels that were likely to be of no consequence (26.6%), and the lowest proportion with the potential to deliver all resources (4.7%); Glamorgan had 1.4% of parcels that were detrimental to pipistrelles.


73

Figure 41 At the vice-county level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal the with the different maximum prescription scores, the percentage of the total land parcels with the different prescriptions scores and the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for the pipistrelle bats.

Assessment of common and soprano pipistrelle key areas to identify the degree of overlap between range and the location of prescription agreements that are beneficial to the species was not undertaken because of the ubiquity of pipistrelles. However, had the species been split into common and soprano pipistrelles and scored separately, it may have been possible to make this assessment. 4.3.4.4 serotine bat Although a much larger species with a distinct ecology, under this scoring system, in which the prescriptions are considered for their ability to deliver roosting, commuting or foraging habitat this species was found to take identical scores to the lesser horseshoe bat. Both species have a high affinity with built (or in the case of lesser horseshoe built and underground structures) as roosting sites, and this restricted the achievement of a score of ‘all ecological requirements’. At a national (all-Wales) and vice-county scale, reference should be made to the three pie charts and vice-county maps for the lesser horseshoe bat (section 4.3.4.1.1). There was no overlap between serotine range and the location of agreements that are beneficial to the species. This may because there are only eleven 10km squares with serotine records in Wales. The species may be under recorded; records for this species do seem to reflect areas of human population, which is not surprising given its affinity for roosting in houses. 4.3.4.5 brown hare As can be seen from Figure 42, Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver relatively significant benefits for brown hare, with 40% of the area of land under Tir Gofal prescriptions across Wales, and just over 80% of all agreements, having the potential to deliver all the ecological requirements of the species. It should be noted that the figures for ‘area’ do not include parcels of non-prescription improved land. The percentage area of land and agreements with a potentially detrimental effect on hares is negligible in the analysis of agreements and land area, and restricted to 4.5% of parcels. These are largely linear features, which do not have a hectarage value assigned and so do not form part of the analysis of land area.


74

#

Figure 42 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores, the percentage of land parcels with the different prescription scores, and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for brown hare.

When these data are broken down to the vice-county level, the picture remains broadly similar but with some interesting local variation (Figure 43). The most interesting feature of these disaggregated data is the noticeable proportion of detrimental prescriptions occurring in Pembrokeshire (5.5%), Gwent (1.4%) and Flint (1.8%). The vice-county with the greatest potential delivery for hares (based on area) is Radnor (53% area with the potential to deliver all requirements) and the vice-county with the least potential is Meirionnydd (29% area with the potential to deliver all requirements), with north Wales generally faring less well, having greater % prescription area being of no consequence. When the data for percentage of agreements and percentage of land parcels are also broken down to the level of vice-county, further interesting patterns occur (Figure 43). In almost all counties, the majority of agreements have a maximum score that demonstrates the potential to deliver all requirements for hare. The most noticeable exceptions are Meirionnydd, Montgomery, Radnor and Pembrokeshire. Caernarfon and Meirionnydd, despite the majority of agreements scoring highly, are the only two counties with a visible proportion of negatively scoring agreements. This is also reflected in the distribution of negatively scoring land parcels, which are generally a feature of north Wales (Anglesey, Caernarfon, Meirionnydd, Denbigh, Flint). The mid-Wales counties contain fewest detrimentally managed land parcels (Montgomery, Radnor, Brecknock, Ceredigion, Carmarthen). It should be noted that the scores for agreements are generally very high, since they are based on the maximum scoring prescription (or combination of prescriptions) contained. Since certain prescriptions are included within almost all individual agreements, a relatively high proportion of prescriptions scored highly for hares, and as these also tended to be for relatively abundant habitats for Wales such as unimproved grasslands, the chance of attaining the maximum score on any one holding became very high.


75

Figure 43 At the vice-county level, a) the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal the with the different maximum prescription scores, b) the percentage of the total land parcels with the different prescriptions scores and c) the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for the brown hare.

For brown hare, analysis demonstrated that there was no difference between the current delivery of prescriptions benefiting brown hare between land within ‘key areas’ for the species and land outside these areas. For further discussion, see section 8.3.4.2. 4.3.4.6 water vole At a national (all-Wales) level, only 22.1% (30,664.31ha) of all the prescription land within Tir Gofal agreements (comprising 139,037ha in total) is currently being managed under prescriptions likely to deliver all of the resource requirements of the species (Figure 44).


76

Figure 44 At the national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores, the percentage of land parcels with the different prescription scores, and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for water vole.

The majority or prescription area (61.2%) within Tir Gofal agreements comprises of management prescriptions that deliver only some of the resource requirements of the species, and only when applied in and adjacent to wetland or riparian habitats, which may mean, in many areas (not supporting wetland habitat) the prescriptions being of no direct consequence to the species. However, given the vast area of land (85,101.56ha) these habitat prescriptions cover in Tir Gofal agreements in Wales, there are likely to be benefits through the creation of habitat dispersal corridors in the landscape, potentially enabling water voles to travel from one suitable habitat to another. Encouragingly, only a relatively low (0.9%) area of land in Tir Gofal (1,234.5ha) is taken up by prescriptions with the potential to be detrimental to water vole. It should be noted that area figures do not take into account data on linear features or parcels of non-prescription land, which have the potential to be detrimental to the species. There is a considerable variation in maximum prescription scores for Tir Gofal agreements, parcels and area (Figure 44). This is because percent area refers to the total amount of prescription land in Tir Gofal, whereas the agreement score is derived from the maximum prescription score within an agreement, meaning that although an agreement may only have 1 parcel of land scoring highly for water vole, and several more being of no consequence or even detrimental, the agreement overall will achieve maximum score. Therefore, land parcels may give a more realistic overview of the effectiveness of Tir Gofal. The other benefit of analysing land parcels is that linear and point source data could be taken into consideration, which do not appear in area data (although they do contribute to maximum agreement scores). The vast majority of agreements (82%) include at least one prescription that is able to provide all of the resource requirements for water vole. Further analysis shows that the most commonly used prescription, likely to provide all the resource requirements for the species is TG11 (marshy grassland), especially when in conjunction with other prescriptions such as streamside corridors and buffer zones. In total 1623 agreements in Tir Gofal incorporate the marshy grassland prescription (including different combinations involving the prescription), covering 12,877ha of land. Of greater concern is the relatively large proportion of agreements (7%) that have a maximum prescription score of -2, potentially detrimental to the species. This concern is further emphasised when analysing the percentage scores of land parcels within Tir Gofal Figure 44, which show that over 37% are considered potentially detrimental to water vole. In addition, only 15% of land parcels offer all the resource requirements for the species. The large proportion of negatively scored land parcels is caused by the inclusion of stonewall prescription (TG19A)


77

and barn owl (Tyto alba) nest boxes, which are not included in area data and are likely to be superseded by higher scoring prescriptions in agreements. A similar breakdown of percent area, parcel and maximum agreement score at a national (all-Wales) level can be witnessed at the vice-county level (Figure 45). At the vice-county level, the area of prescription land in Tir Gofal broadly follows that of the national (all-Wales) trend (Figure 44), with notable exceptions of Radnor and Ceredigion, which show that prescriptions providing all of the resource requirements for water vole cover 35% and 31% respectively for these counties, above the national (all-Wales) area score of 22.1%. Conversely, the area of prescription land in Tir Gofal agreements in the vice-counties of Flintshire and Gwent that provide all resource requirements is considerably lower than at the national (all-Wales) level, just 7% and 4% respectively.

Figure 45 At the vice-county level, the percentage of the total agreements in Tir Gofal the with the different maximum prescription scores, the percentage of the total land parcels with the different prescriptions scores and the percentage of the total land area in Tir Gofal with the different prescriptions scores for water vole.


78

Maximum agreement scores at the vice-county level broadly follows a similar pattern to the national (all-Wales) level. This is especially true in Carmarthenshire (Figure 45), where 94% of Tir Gofal agreements incorporate a maximum scoring prescription, likely to provide all resource requirements for the species. Perhaps more obvious is the greater incidence of agreements with a maximum score likely to be detrimental to water vole, found in the vice-counties of Meirionnydd and Montgomeryshire, 19% and 17% respectively, compared to the national (all-Wales) maximum agreement score being just 7%. For the vice-counties of Gwent and Flintshire no agreement had a maximum prescription score of detrimental or no consequence, unlike all other vice-counties. At the vice-county level maximum prescription scores for land parcels in Tir Gofal (Figure 45) also follow a similar trend to that at a national (all-Wales) level, with the greater percentage of land parcels being occupied by prescriptions scoring negatively, with only a relatively small percentage of parcels of maximum score. The greatest anomaly to the national agreement scores can be found in the vice-county of Pembrokeshire, where land parcels scoring detrimentally occupy 55% of the land parcels (compared to 37% throughout Wales). The analysis of data at the regional water vole key area level shows very little difference in percent area and land parcel of prescription land in Tir Gofal and little difference in percentage of agreements with maximum prescription scores inside and outside the key area, broadly reflecting that of the national (all-Wales) and vice-county analysis. The slight differences that do occur show that there are more agreements providing all resource requirements and less agreements potentially detrimental to water vole inside key areas than outside of the key areas. 4.3.5 Birds 4.3.5.1 black grouse There is good provision, in terms of the availability of prescriptions, for black grouse in Tir Gofal. A number of prescriptions have a strong potential of delivering all of the species year-round requirements provided they are implemented and maintained correctly (section 4.2.5.1). Furthermore, it appears that uptake of these prescriptions is high; 80% of the total Tir Gofal area and 84% of agreements have some potential to deliver for black grouse, of this, 44% of area and 57% of agreements have strong evidence of high delivery (Figure 46).

Figure 46 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for black grouse.


79

The proportion of land at the vice-county level shows a strong regional variation (Figure 47), particularly in respect of those prescriptions with strong evidence of high delivery. This is almost certainly habitat-related, given that the prescriptions with strong evidence of high delivery are those aimed at managing key upland habitats (e.g. upland heath and blanket bog), which are mandatory prescriptions in Tir Gofal.

Figure 47 At the vice-county level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores (left) and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores (right) for black grouse. At the key area level (Figure 48), a higher proportion of potentially beneficial land and agreements within the key areas than outwith. Indeed, this difference is statistically significant for prescriptions with strong evidence of high delivery; where there is significantly more land inside the key areas than outside. This would suggest that there is a degree of focussing of resources for black grouse into their key areas. Within the key area, Tir Gofal provides 11067 ha of potentially beneficial prescriptions; 8440 ha of which have strong evidence of delivery. Thus, a high percentage of the key area delivers beneficial prescriptions (18.1%) and 13.8% delivers these with strong evidence. The results of this desk study would suggest that Tir Gofal has a strong potential of delivering for black grouse, as the scheme contains the right prescriptions, and uptake is good within the key areas. Whether this is at a sufficient scale, and of sufficient quality, to drive population recovery is beyond the scope of this study.


80

Figure 48 At the key area level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for black grouse.

4.3.5.2 grey partridge There is adequate provision for grey partridge in Tir Gofal, with a number of prescriptions with strong evidence of delivering an element of the species year-round requirements, combinations of which would be needed to provide for their year-round requirements. Although, perhaps encouragingly, some 44% of all Tir Gofal land area under management has some potential to deliver for grey partridge, just 4% has strong evidence of delivery of one or more of the species’ year-round requirements. However, 39% of agreements have strong evidence of delivery (the combination of prescriptions on an agreement being a contributory factor), and virtually all (98%) agreements some potential of delivery for grey partridge (Figure 49).

Figure 49 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for grey partridge.

The analysis of the data at the vice-county level (Figure 50) shows broadly similar patterns as that at the national (all-Wales) level. However, there is some regional variation, and this almost certainly reflects


81

the distribution of arable agriculture in Wales, e.g. higher percentages of beneficial prescriptions in the more arable-dominant Flint and Gwent, than in pastoral-dominant Meirionnydd and Caernarfon.

Figure 50 At a vice-county level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores (left) and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores (right) for grey partridge.

At the key area level, there is a clearly higher proportion of beneficial land and agreements within the key areas than out. Indeed, there is more land inside the key areas for grey partridge with strong evidence of high delivery compared to land outside key areas (Figure 51); a difference that is statistically significant. Tir Gofal provides 2661ha, of potentially beneficial prescriptions within the key areas, 712ha (0.5% of the key area) of which have a strong likelihood of delivery. The results presented here seem encouraging. Tir Gofal contains the right prescriptions for grey partridge (a combination of which increase the potential of delivery of the species’ year-round requirements), with good uptake, particularly in the key areas.


82

Figure 51 At a key area level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for grey partridge.

4.3.5.3 lapwing There is poor provision for lapwing in Tir Gofal. Only prescriptions with weak potential of providing elements of the species requirements are available, and none have strong evidence of high delivery, despite the fact that because the lapwing is migratory, delivery of all resources only required nest sites and summer food (Table 53).

Figure 52 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for lapwing.

In terms of uptake at the national (all-Wales) level, there is a high proportion of the total Tir Gofal land area under these prescriptions (50%), and a high proportion of agreements (71%) have some potential (with low evidence) to deliver (Figure 52). There were few noteworthy differences in delivery between vice-counties thus they are not presented here. At the key area level, some differences become apparent. The area of potentially beneficial prescriptions within and outside key area is similar. However, differences are apparent at the agreement level where


83

there is a trend for a higher proportion of agreements with weak evidence of some delivery inside the key area (Figure 53), although this difference is not statistically significant. These results suggest that there is no focussing of resources for lapwing.

Figure 53 At a key area level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for lapwing.

These results suggest that Tir Gofal is unlikely to deliver for lapwing due to a lack of prescriptions with strong evidence of potential to deliver all requirements. This may be considered odd given the availability of a prescription to manage specifically for breeding lapwing (the only species-focussed prescription in the scheme). The main shortfalls of the ‘Management for breeding lapwing’ prescription are the reliance on a grazing density expressed in LSU/ha/year in maintaining suitable conditions through the breeding season (which does not allow for seasonal and regional variations in growth) when an objective-led grazing regime would have a higher certainty of delivery and the preference for sheep grazing Jul-Mar which don’t necessarily produce the required sward structure for nesting. The lack of rush control and re-wetting capital works to be mandatorily combined with the grazing management could also be considered a shortcoming. Although there is a high uptake of the prescriptions that may have some benefit for lapwing, these only have a weak likelihood of delivery. Furthermore, the areas of these on the ground are small, at just 6071 ha, or 3.2% of the key area. Although there is a high uptake of the prescriptions that may have some benefit for lapwing, these only have a weak potential of delivery. Furthermore, the areas of these on the ground are small, at just 6071 ha, or 3.2% of the key area. 4.3.5.4 curlew There is poor provision for curlew in Tir Gofal. Only prescriptions with weak evidence of delivering elements of the species requirements are available, despite the fact that because the curlew is migratory, delivery of all resources only required nest sites and summer food (Table 53). In terms of uptake, there is a high proportion of the managed Tir Gofal land area under these prescriptions (62%), the majority of which has weak evidence of high delivery. 27% of agreements have some potential to deliver for curlew, and the combination of prescriptions within agreements increases the potential of delivery on a small number of agreements (1%) (Figure 54).


84

Figure 54 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for curlew.

At the key area level, some differences become apparent. There is more land with some potential to deliver for curlew within the key area than outside, and this difference is statistically significant for land with weak evidence of low delivery (Figure 55). In terms of the actual area, beneficial prescriptions make up 19003 ha, or 6.4% of the key area.

Figure 55 At the key area level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for curlew.

Similar to Lapwing, these results suggest that Tir Gofal is unlikely to deliver for curlew due to a lack of prescriptions with strong evidence of potential to delivery alone. Encouragingly, there is a higher uptake of prescriptions of some potential for curlew within the key area. However, as there is only weak evidence that these will actually deliver and their area in real terms is low, impact could be minimal.


85

4.3.5.5 turtle dove There is adequate provision for turtle dove in Tir Gofal, with a number of prescriptions with strong evidence of delivering an element of the species year-round requirements; a combination of which would be needed to provide for all requirements during the breeding season (this species winters in Africa). Although just 19% of all Tir Gofal land area has some potential to deliver for turtle dove (and of that, only 4% with strong evidence), 97% of agreements have some potential of delivery; 45% of which have strong evidence of delivery (Figure 56). Similar to the other species which require scrub or hedges for nesting, the combination of prescriptions within agreements (in particular those including hedgerow restoration prescriptions in combination with options providing food) are important in driving delivery at the agreement level.

Figure 56 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for turtle dove.

The analysis of the data at the vice-county level shows broadly similar patterns as that at the national (all-Wales) level. There is some regional variation, and this almost certainly reflects the distribution of arable agriculture in Wales, e.g. higher percentages in Flint and Gwent, than in Meirionnydd and Caernarfon. Results are not presented at the key area level, as there are now no areas in Wales that regularly hold territorial turtle doves (Green et al. 2007). As with a number of other species considered here, these results suggest that Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver for turtle dove, provided the prescriptions are delivered to the required quality on the ground. 4.3.5.6 chough There is poor provision for chough in Tir Gofal with, at best, prescriptions with only weak evidence of delivering an element of the species year-round requirements. Although 38% of the total area is covered by prescriptions with some chance of delivery for chough, these have weak evidence of low delivery. 15% of agreements have weak evidence of high delivery, demonstrating the effects (and importance) of the combination of prescriptions across individual agreements (Figure 57). This is most probably due to agreements having, for example, semi-improved grassland and winter stubble prescriptions; these prescriptions having weak evidence of delivering summer and winter feeding habitat respectively and are two of the more popular in the scheme in terms of uptake.


86

Figure 57 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for chough.

The analysis of data at the key area level (Figure 58) shows no difference either in terms of percent area or percent agreements within and outwith key areas. In terms of actual area of beneficial Tir Gofal prescriptions inside the key area, this is just 6857 ha, or 5% of the key area, and none of this has strong evidence of delivery for chough.

Figure 58 At the key area level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for chough.

Although the value of Tir Gofal agreements increases due to the combination of prescriptions within agreements, these results suggest that the scheme is unlikely to deliver for chough due to a lack of prescriptions with strong evidence of potential to delivery alone.


87

4.3.5.7 tree sparrow There is adequate provision for tree sparrow in Tir Gofal, with a number of prescriptions with strong evidence of delivering an element of the species year-round requirements; a combination of which increases their delivery of more than one of these seasonal requirements. Perhaps encouragingly, some 67% of all Tir Gofal land area has some evidence to deliver for tree sparrow, 16% of which has strong evidence of delivery of one or more of the species’ year-round requirements. Furthermore, 74% of agreements have strong evidence of delivery (the combination of prescriptions on an agreement will be a contributory factor). As with grey partridge, virtually all (98%) agreements have some potential of delivery for tree sparrow (Figure 59). There was little variation at the vice-county level therefore results are not presented here.

Figure 59 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for tree sparrow.

At the key area level (Figure 60), there is virtually no difference in terms of percentage area or percentage agreements when comparing inside and outside the key area. In the key area, Tir Gofal provides 11651 ha of prescriptions with some potential to benefit tree sparrows, this equates to 3.1% of the key area. Of this just 2236 ha, or 0.6%, of the key area are Tir Gofal prescriptions with strong evidence of delivery for tree sparrow. Hedgerow restoration, one of the potential nesting habitats for tree sparrow, is more abundant within the key area with 7,020 km of hedgerow restoration compared to 2,727 km outside. Tir Gofal clearly has the potential to deliver for tree sparrow; the scheme offers prescriptions that address their year-round requirements, and these are being adopted in agreements. Of concern though are the lack of targeting and the small amounts of land containing these prescriptions within the key areas. Even if the 22248 ha of good prescriptions (strong evidence/high delivery) were implemented solely in the key areas, this would still amount to just 6% of available land within the key areas.


88

Figure 60 At the key area level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for tree sparrow.

4.3.5.8 yellowhammer There is good provision for yellowhammer in Tir Gofal, with a number of prescriptions with strong evidence of delivering at least one element of the species year-round requirements. Although 64% of Tir Gofal land under management has some potential of delivery for yellowhammer, uptake of prescriptions with strong evidence of delivery is low at 7% (and just 0.1% of which is under a prescription that has strong evidence of high delivery). As with grey partridge and tree sparrow, a very high proportion of agreements (98%) have some potential to deliver for yellowhammer, 59% of which have strong evidence of delivery (Figure 61). This reflects the combination of key prescriptions within an agreement; in particular the large length of hedgerow restoration within the scheme (almost 3400 km).

Figure 61 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for yellowhammer.


89

The analysis at the vice-county level (Figure 62) shows some variation emerging. Although the area of potentially beneficial prescriptions is broadly similar across the vice-counties, there are variations in the different categories of these. Caernarfon and Meirionnydd, two vice-counties generally thought to have good populations of yellowhammers (Figure 79), have smaller proportions of the ‘best’ prescriptions than the other vice-counties (with the exception of Radnor). Conversely, they have a higher proportion of weak evidence / high delivery prescriptions than the other vice-counties, giving them some of the highest proportions of all potentially beneficial prescriptions. In terms of the proportion of agreements, there are similar variations, with virtually all agreements in all vice-counties having some potential to deliver for yellowhammer. However, there are variations in the potential of delivery: Anglesey, Flintshire, Gwent and Glamorgan have the highest proportion of agreements with the best potential to deliver, and Pembrokeshire the lowest.

Figure 62 At the vice-county level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for yellowhammer.

At the key area level (Figure 63), there is no significant difference in terms of percentage area or percentage agreements when comparing inside and outside the key area. Tir Gofal provides 35879 ha of prescriptions with some potential to benefit yellowhammer in the key area, equating to 4.6% of the key area. Of this, just 5427 ha, or 0.7% of the key area, are Tir Gofal prescriptions with strong evidence of delivery for yellowhammer. In addition, within yellowhammer key areas, there is 1,338 km of hedgerow restoration compared to 2,088 km outside.


90

Figure 63 At the key area level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for yellowhammer.

Tir Gofal clearly has the potential to deliver for yellowhammer; the scheme offers prescriptions that address their year-round requirements, and these are being adopted in agreements. The low area of beneficial prescriptions within the key areas is of concern, particularly with regard to those with strong evidence of delivery. 4.3.5.9 corn bunting There is good provision for corn bunting in Tir Gofal, with a number of prescriptions with strong evidence of delivering an element of the species year-round requirements; including prescriptions with strong evidence of potential delivery of all of the species year-round requirements (Figure 64).

Figure 64 At a national (all-Wales) level, the percentage of Tir Gofal agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores and the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores for corn bunting.


91

55% of Tir Gofal land under management has some potential of delivery for corn bunting and, unlike many of the other species considered here, the majority of this land (44%) has strong evidence of delivery; albeit mainly of partial delivery of the species’ year-round requirements. 76% of agreements have some potential to deliver for corn buntings, the majority of which also have strong evidence for delivery (Figure 64). Formal comparisons within and outwith key areas are unreliable due to tiny area of the current range in Wales (key area = 3818 ha). Within the key area there are just 1.5 ha of beneficial prescriptions. As with the other arable-related species, Tir Gofal clearly has the potential to deliver for corn bunting in Wales: the right prescriptions are available and take-up of agreements is good. However, there is only a very small area of beneficial prescription within the one remaining key area, which now contains only a handful of pairs. 5 DISCUSSION The following sections discuss the findings of this review in respect to the research question: “What proportion of current Tir Gofal, Tir Cynnal and Organic Farming Scheme agreements meet all (or some) of the critical needs of the focal species?” 5.1 Tir Cynnal Although Tir Cynnal certainly has the potential to benefit many of the species considered in this review, whole farm conditions provide little benefit for the species beyond basic habitat protection, e.g. the preservation of farm trees and field boundaries. For one species, Brown Hairstreak, the whole farm conditions for management of field boundaries are actually more beneficial than the corresponding requirements in Tir Gofal, particularly where hedgerows are used to meet the 5% habitat area. All of the focal species have specialist requirements that cannot necessarily delivered by such general management conditions and using these conditions risks lack of delivery for target species and creating conflicts for their specific management requirements. The seven habitat creation options available for farmers who do not meet the 5% habitat area condition offer far more in terms of potential for focal species. For example, reducing inputs as a mechanism to revert improved grassland to semi-improved has some potential benefit for all species except for black grouse. This option could potentially deliver nesting and feeding habitat for grey partridge, lapwing and curlew, year-round feeding habitat for chough and invertebrate-rich summer feeding habitat for tree sparrow and yellowhammer. However, the likelihood of this option delivering for these species is low due to the non-specific nature of this mechanism and actual benefit will depend on the outcome of the particular management approach used. Additional options have further delivery potential for the arable-dependent species. For example, the creating rough grass margins could deliver beneficial habitat for brown hare, water vole and grey partridge. As with Tir Gofal, uncropped margins under Tir Cynnal could deliver for invertebrates, and wild bird cover and unsprayed root crops are highly likely to deliver winter-feeding habitat for birds. In conclusion, Tir Cynnal has some limited delivery potential for most species considered in this review, and the arable-dependent species are particularly well provided for. However, uptake of Tir Cynnal options is the key to ensuring the resources needed for particular species are actually provided. Given the generally low uptake for the scheme, the view that many entrants already have the required 5% of area as wildlife habitat (so will not adopt any more habitat creation options), and the fact that the most attractive habitat creation option is likely to be the relatively straightforward reduction of inputs on improved grassland, Tir Cynnal can only be expected to provide very limited delivery on a national scale for most species covered by this review.


92

As Tir Cynnal is not prescription based, it has not been possible in the context of this review to determine if it has potential to deliver critical resources for focal species. Changes to the government’s agreement database should be considered to differentiate Tir Cynnal agreements that contain habitat creation options and the systematic recording the type of habitat creation options adopted would assist any future studies of delivery of critical resources by this scheme. Without these data, it would also be difficult to establish cost-effective protocols for the monitoring of Tir Cynnal for most of the species covered by this study. 5.2 Organic Farming Scheme In terms of biodiversity management, the Organic Farming Scheme appears to offer little more than basic cross-compliance measures. As such, and unless combined with a scheme with greater delivery potential e.g. Tir Gofal, potential benefits will be limited to whatever potential benefits arise from organic farming in general. There is evidence that organic farming, through mechanisms such as the absence of pesticides and the general ethos of those participating in organic agriculture, may be generally beneficial for wildlife; including arable plants, bats and some birds (see Hole et al. 2005). However, Chamberlain et al. (1999) showed that effects on birds were not necessarily statistically significant and, even if they were, could often not be attributed to specific practices. For a few species, e.g. lapwing, detrimental impacts of organic practice, e.g. mechanical weeding, have been reported (Kragten et al. in press). In conclusion, it is hard to assess the scheme’s potential benefit for these evaluation species due to a lack of prescriptive measures. This in itself indicates the scheme has limited delivery potential. Coupling this with the low uptake level for the scheme, makes it very unlikely that the Organic Farming Scheme will deliver anything significant for these species. 5.3 Tir Gofal This desk study indicates that the potential for Tir Gofal to deliver favorable outcomes varies for the focal species considered. For an AES to deliver for priority species it must offer prescriptions that address their key resource requirements and limiting factors. The delivery scores suggests that most Tir Gofal prescriptions have the potential for moderate to good delivery for many individual species, e.g. five of the six butterfly species (see sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 for details of individual species). Evidence for deployment at a scale needed to have a population level effect is generally unquantified. However, for at least one focal species (black grouse) the high concentration of good prescriptions within key areas may mean Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver population-level benefits. For other species or groups, e.g. arable plants, it is highly unlikely that the current delivery scale will be sufficient to increase populations at a national or regional level. In all cases, the delivery potential (as outlined in this review) needs to be verified by monitoring. When ranked in terms of delivery for all the species considered in this review, eight out of the nine highest-scoring prescriptions can potentially provide all the key ecological requirements for five or more focal species, as did five other prescriptions that scored less-highly overall (Table 20). Amongst the top third of the 50 prescriptions ranked by score in Table 20, the majority constitute mandatory rather than optional requirements: although there are differences between taxa and between individual species and groups (e.g. see 8.1.4 for detailed discussion). These include unimproved acid grassland, lowland coastal heath unimproved limestone grassland and coastal habitat – unimproved acid grassland. The optional prescriptions with by far the highest potential delivery scores were uncropped fallow margins and restoration of semi-improved to unimproved grass, but uptake of these options is low. Of the capital works options, other invasive species control had the highest potential delivery score.


93

All 50 prescriptions gave some potentially positive delivery for at least one species, although seven failed to deliver all requirements for any of the focal species. Where a prescription contributes some potential benefit to an element of a target species life-cycle but fails to deliver all of that species’ requirements, thought should be given to using option combinations within the same agreement (or within the same land parcel for less mobile species,). Such combinations have the potential to increase delivery for many focal species, e.g. grey partridge, tree sparrow and yellowhammer (8.4.4, Figure 8 and Figure 9). For a minority of species, provision of beneficial prescriptions within Tir Gofal is poor. For example, chough has no prescriptions available that deliver all of the resource requirements; while only one (TG29, uncropped fallow margins) delivers all the needs of arable plant species. Consequently, the potential for the scheme to deliver for these species or communities is very limited. A major shortfall of the Tir Gofal scheme for bats is the absence of a specific prescription to maintain or enhance biodiversity relating to buildings and underground structures (maintenance of historic buildings is included under capital works, but for reasons of historic or aesthetic value, not biodiversity.) Species such as serotine and lesser horseshoe bats rely almost entirely on man-made structures for roosting, and need these buildings to be maintained rather than either allowed to fall into disrepair or unsympathetically converted. There are some prescriptions that are potentially damaging for many focal species, e.g. establish broadleaved woodland and scrub on improved grassland is detrimental to 16 focal species and benefits (in all cases only partially) just 10 species. However, it should be noted that establishing woodland through other means (e.g. by natural regeneration or restoring plantations) is less detrimental and may be highly beneficial for noctule and pipistrelle bats. Generally, potentially damaging prescriptions are far outweighed by the beneficial prescriptions available but rarely, e.g. for pink waxcap in some areas, the uptake of beneficial prescriptions is matched or even exceeded by the uptake of detrimental ones. In practice, any adverse impacts will depend on proximity to (or replacement of) a key resource needed by species, e.g. tree planting adjacent to species that require open or sunlight habitats. Although there are potentially damaging prescriptions for most individual focal species, prescriptions with the highest potential delivery scores rarely had potentially adverse impacts on any of the focal species. However, there are a few notable exceptions (e.g. scrub clearance) and where there are potential conflicts, consideration should be given to the species likely to be present on or near the agreement before the decision is made to proceed. If species with conflicting requirements are likely to be present, prescriptions should be implemented in some areas of the agreement but not in others to allow a diversity of habitats and managements. Across the suite of 32 focal species, only three out of 50 prescriptions had markedly negative delivery scores for this suite of focal species and the strong negative score for conversion of arable land, was not surprising. This prescription is only likely to be beneficial in circumstances where the existing landscape is an arable monoculture. The other prescriptions with strong negative scores (establish new reedbeds/swamps and establish broadleaved woodland and scrub) probably reflect the scarcity of sylvan and riparian species among the suite of 32 focal species studied in this review. Doubtless, both prescriptions have benefits for a few individual focal species (e.g. in the case of water vole establishing reedbeds/swamps, and in the case of bats both prescriptions) and for further species outside the scope of this study. Nevertheless, introduction of these managements (as with many others) need to evaluate potential detrimental impacts on other priority species before they are instigated. While many Tir Gofal prescriptions have the potential for moderate to good delivery, this review suggests that low uptake levels, or poor targeting of beneficial prescriptions, could limit benefits for many species. This is apparent both across-taxa (Table 20) and for individual species (sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3,


94

4.3.4, 4.3.5). For certain widespread species or groups (e.g. arable plant and bird communities), it is very unlikely that uptake of Tir Gofal prescriptions at current levels will deliver benefits at the landscape level. For rarer species associated with distinct habitat types, there is generally better delivery with greater uptake of beneficial prescriptions within key areas. In some cases, e.g. black grouse and large heath, where there resources appear to be focused into the key areas, this may reflect ‘targeting by default’. This could be due to the association of black grouse and large heath with key upland habitats (as suggested by the vice-county analysis), the fact that some key upland prescriptions score highly for these species, and that these same prescriptions are mandatory for scheme entrants. The results for some other species also suggest a degree of resource focussing into key areas is likely to be due to the strong association of these species with arable farming. For other species, there is little apparent targeting of beneficial prescriptions in key areas, meaning opportunities for biodiversity gain are missed (e.g. bats) but for others, lack of targeting is more than compensated for by the widespread application of beneficial prescriptions both within and outside key areas (e.g. brown hare). Detailed discussion of delivery potential for individual species and groups can be found in sections 8.1.4, 8.2.5, 8.3.4 and 8.4.4. At a nation (all-Wales) level, uptake of some prescriptions with the highest potential is limited by the small numbers of land parcels and/or their restricted area. Among the top nine scoring prescriptions across all focal species, only unimproved acid grassland and marshy grassland are ranked among the top ten commonest prescriptions, either in terms of area or land parcels Table 20. However, for water vole, the quality of habitat the prescription for marshy grassland is being applied to may be degraded to such an extent as to make the habitat unsuitable to support the species. 87% of agreements have some hedgerow restoration, which has the potential to be beneficial for a wide range of species (although there are also potential conflicts in terms of the different managements required and the increased predation potential – see below). Of the remaining seven top scoring options, only lowland coastal heath has substantial uptake Table 20. Other prescriptions with good uptake and moderately high potential delivery across taxa include bog and upland heath. These are important in delivering all requirements needed by some focal species but these have a lower overall score because many other focal species are not associated with these habitats, so these prescriptions are of no consequence to those species. A few prescriptions (including reedbeds, fens and swamps, and conversion of improved grass to semi-improved grass) have high uptake but decidedly modest delivery potential across the suite of focal species. Conversely, prescriptions to create wetland habitats such as ponds, reedbed, fens and swamp have a very low uptake, but a high potential for delivering for certain species, e.g. water vole. Another prescription with high uptake, broadleaved woodland, also has modest delivery over all taxa but delivers all resources for noctule and pipistrelle bats. Buffer zones, one of the most widespread prescriptions have poor delivery across the suite of focal species. This may be due to a relatively narrow width of buffered area, which, although providing some habitat and resource requirements for focal species, does not encompass an area large enough to provide all of their resource requirements. Only one of the prescriptions (establish broadleaved woodland and scrub) with overall markedly negative potential delivery scores also has reasonably high uptake. While establishing broadleaved woodland and scrub with certain management detail (see above) can be beneficial for some bats, and perhaps for further species not considered by this review, given its potentially detrimental impact on many focal species, there is a need to consider carefully where this prescription is deployed appropriately. This review also examined potential Tir Gofal delivery at the agreement, parcel and area levels. It shows that delivery may vary between these levels for an individual species and that the most appropriate


95

assessment level may also vary between the focal taxa. For sedentary taxa, e.g. plants, Tir Gofal prescription delivery needs to be highly targeted at the parcel (i.e. field) level, as these taxa are unable to move easily to other sites should adverse stochastic events occur or harmful management be imposed on them. Conversely, for more mobile groups, such as birds, bats and brown hare, delivering a certain resource level over a wider-scale may be sufficient to ensure that to provide all of the key requirements are provided within the home range. For most species, the proportion of the landscape that should be allocated to a particular resource/habitat in order to maintain a stable population is unknown but examples of quantification of the level of key resource needed by two focal bird species (grey partridge and yellowhammer) are given in section 8.4.4. In both cases, Tir Gofal falls short of providing the quantity of these prescriptions needed to positively influence the species at the population level. There are several general caveats when interpreting delivery scores and considering the adoption of management prescriptions. Delivery (as expressed in this report) is a potential score based on expert opinions for the relevant taxa rather than representing actual delivery on the ground. The quality of prescription implementation is beyond the scope of this desk study and needs field validation to ascertain the actual impact. The Welsh Assembly Government are currently in the process of addressing the urgent need for agri-environment scheme monitoring. Despite the uncertainty over actual on-the-ground delivery, it is worth noting some other factors that will affect on-the-ground benefits:

• Adequate advice is needed to ensure prescriptions are established and maintained correctly to address the needs of particular focal species. A clear benefit of Tir Gofal is that management prescriptions are delivered by landowners and farmers who have a wealth of land management skills and experience, and who can manage and create new wildlife habitats if given appropriate guidance and support. However, even if a particular focal species is known to be present on or near an agreement site, it may be difficult to obtain specific, detailed management advice for that species. It is hoped that the specific information contained in this review will help advisors decide on appropriate management prescriptions for the 32 focal species covered, and to minimise management conflicts between these species.

• Prescriptions need to be carried out as per the management guide requirements. The 2007 Tir Gofal audit found that it is difficult to monitor compliance breaches, particularly for stocking rates, given the current level of additional inspections (just 10% of farms).

• Incorrect habitat classification can lead to harmful/inappropriate prescriptions being implemented on Tir Gofal agreements. The Tir Gofal audit found that 20% of sites were classified differently to ADAS classification, especially with regards to habitats in mosaic and degraded habitats.

5.3.1 Tir Gofal: key taxa or species-specific conclusions The following key conclusions are made for plants in the light of undertaking this review:

• Since plants are largely sedentary and cannot move easily around farms, providing beneficial prescriptions on areas of agreements where the plants occur will be necessary for delivery. More research is needed to establish whether this targeting is occurring.

• Although a very high percentage of agreements (90.3%) include prescriptions that deliver all or some of the needs of arable plant species, these are actually applied to an incredibly small area of land, just 3033 ha (2.2% of the TG area) across the whole of Wales, and an equal area are subject to detrimental prescriptions. In this context, arable species are not benefiting from Tir Gofal, especially at the landscape level.

• A high percentage of agreements (76.2%) include prescriptions that deliver all or some of the needs of heathland plant species. Since these prescriptions are applied to large parcels of land, a


96

large area benefits from them, although it is essential that the targeting of uptake in key areas (especially in Pembrokeshire and Glamorgan) is improved.

• Although only 13.8% of agreements include prescriptions that deliver all or some of the needs of juniper, these are targeted to the key areas and counties where juniper grows extremely well, and the total area under beneficial prescriptions is large. Long-term monitoring is required, however, to determine whether the levels of grazing the prescriptions allow are low enough to enable seedling junipers grow to maturity.

• Although a large percentage of agreements (67.7%) include prescriptions that deliver all or some of the needs of waxcap, there is no benefit to this species unless the management of the grasslands on which it grows is maintained for decades, a condition that Tir Gofal is unable to guarantee. The area of land subject to beneficial prescriptions is equalled by that with detrimental ones, so there is no net potential conservation benefit to this species from Tir Gofal.

The following key conclusions are made for butterflies in the light of undertaking this review: • Tir Gofal has the potential to benefit five of the six butterfly species studied. • For one species, brown hairstreak, Tir Gofal could be damaging because the general requirements

for hedgerows are not rigorous enough. The scheme requirements need amending in its key area. • For the marsh fritillary, Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver at a landscape scale because of the

high proportion of its main habitats that are in agreements in its key areas. • There is sufficient uptake of mandatory prescriptions across their distribution to establish an

effective monitoring programme. • A monitoring programme is needed to determine if the scheme is delivering on the ground at a

farm scale and also at a landscape scale applicable to butterflies. The following key conclusions are made for mammals in the light of undertaking this review:

• The largest benefits for bats within the scheme are potentially provided by broadleaved woodland maintenance prescriptions (particularly if stock are included) and woodland restoration/regeneration/new planting. For noctule and pipistrelles, these prescriptions have the potential to provide all requirements.

• Requirements to reduce pesticide and herbicide use, and measures that have potential to increase insect abundance and diversity, are likely to benefit all four bat species by enhancing food availability.

• A major shortfall of the Tir Gofal scheme for bats is the absence of a specific prescription to maintain or enhance biodiversity relating to barns, outbuildings and underground structures.

• Tir Gofal has a variety of prescriptions with the potential to deliver substantial benefits for brown hares.

• The greatest benefit for brown hares is from increasing diversity of land management at a holding scale rather than regional targeting.

• Greater emphasis is needed on the creation of water vole habitats, such as streamside corridors, reedbeds and ponds.

• More targeting of beneficial water vole prescriptions is needed in key areas as well as areas where water voles are known to be present or have been recorded in recent years.

• Increased American mink control through special project prescriptions is essential, especially in areas currently supporting water vole.

The following key conclusions are made for birds in the light of undertaking this review: • There are clear benefits of Tir Gofal for priority birds, in terms of the potential for provision of

the prescriptions with a high potential of delivering priority species year-round requirements. For black grouse, grey partridge, turtle dove, tree sparrow, yellowhammer and corn bunting, prescriptions are available with strong evidence of potential delivery, either on their own or in combination with other prescriptions (on the same land parcel, or at the agreement level). However, for the remaining species (lapwing, curlew and chough) provision within the scheme is too inadequate to hope for a response to Tir Gofal at the population level.

• For some species, uptake is greater within the key areas, than outside. This indicates a focusing of resources into those areas where, in the short term at least, they will be of the greatest potential benefit. It is doubtful that this is intentional, and more likely to be a function of species associations with certain habitats for which prescriptions are mandatory within the scheme e.g.


97

black grouse and upland heath (TG5), or with certain farming systems e.g. grey partridge and arable farming. For the remaining species, there is little evidence of a greater uptake within the key areas, which represents a clear shortfall.

• For some species, e.g. tree sparrow and yellowhammer, the proportion of agreements containing potentially good prescriptions is high. However, the actual area of these prescriptions on the ground within the key area is often limited. At the population level, the only bird species for which resource provision by Tir Gofal may come close to being sufficient is black grouse. For the other species, the small area of land in beneficial prescriptions means that Tir Gofal is unlikely to make a significant contribution to population recovery.

• Conflicts exist in Tir Gofal within and across taxa. These conflicts are both generic, e.g. any prescription that encourages the conversion of arable to grassland in an already pasture-dominated landscape is likely to be detrimental to arable-dependent species, and specific, e.g. scrub-clearance for turtle dove and yellowhammer. A further area of potential conflict is with regard to the management within certain prescriptions. For example, a number of species (in particular, grey partridge, turtle dove and yellowhammer) are dependent upon hedgerows to provide (among other requirements) nesting habitat. However, each of these species has specific preferences for different types of hedgerows. For example, grey partridge and yellowhammer require low hedgerows with few trees, whereas turtle doves require tall, thick, rambling hedgerows. Other species with preferences for open landscapes e.g. lapwing and curlew avoid hedgerows entirely. Given some 87% of agreements include hedgerow restoration there is strong potential for conflict of management, the extent for which will only increase when other taxa are brought into consideration, and clear guidance will be required when considering hedgerow restoration in Tir Gofal.

5.4 Recommendations The conclusions reached in this review suggest some improvements to Welsh AES are required if biodiversity targets and commitments are to be met. In particular, Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver for many species, if some gaps in prescription delivery and, critically, shortfalls on uptake can be addressed. For most of the species considered in this review, AES offer the only realistic mechanism to facilitate the recovery of their populations and meet targets and commitments. It is crucial that AES are designed to maximise potential delivery for priority species. The following recommendations are based on the key findings from this review. There is a need to:

1. Address the prescription gaps for those species where existing options (or combinations of options) do not deliver all the key year-round resource requirements of focal species. This needs to be considered in future Axis 2 measures.

2. Increase uptake of prescriptions in the key areas for individual species. 3. Address the identified conflicts within, and across, taxa groups with advice and guidance to

scheme project officers and entrants. 4. In circumstances where priority species with differing habitat requirements are known to exist

within (or close to) an agreement, provide a wide diversity of habitat types within each holding. 5. For sedentary taxa, prescription delivery needs to be highly targeted at the parcel (i.e. field) level,

as these taxa are unable to move easily to other sites. 6. At the landscape scale, ensure that sufficient areas and connectivity (land parcels) of habitat exist

and, where desirable, increase the complexity of the habitat mosaic. 7. Support the development of species packages (CCW: in preparation) to target prescriptions at

vulnerable species that require: (i) prior survey to confirm species presence; (ii) careful targeting of certain prescriptions, and (iii) avoidance of critically damaging prescriptions.

8. Enhance the availability of species distribution information to land managers and advisers by improving the records resource database.

9. Increase uptake of relevant prescriptions to meet the indicative quantities required for a response at the population level, if this has been quantified for a species.


98

10. Where it has not been quantified, conduct further research into the quantities of habitats required to give a response at the population level is required.

Additionally, the following general recommendations would contribute to and help verify delivery of biodiversity benefits:

1. Monitoring is needed to establish whether potential to deliver (as indicated in this review) is translated into actual delivery for key species at the farm (and wider) scale. Undertake monitoring in areas of AES and non-AES controls to assess benefits of schemes and, ideally, before (baseline) and after AES comparisons for new entrants. Only when adequate monitoring is in place will it be possible to verify whether the potential for delivery translates into demonstrable benefits at the option and farm levels and, ultimately, over a wider-scale by positively affecting population trends at regional levels or throughout Wales.

2. Ensure prescriptions are of sufficient quality when implemented. This could be achieved through more visits to assess habitat condition on agreements or through better training and advising of land managers.

3. For Tir Cynnal, changes to the information held on the government’s agreement database should be considered to differentiate agreements that contain habitat creation options. This would allow for systematic recording of the extent and type of habitat creation options adopted would assist any future studies of delivery of critical resources by this scheme. Without these data, for most of the species covered by this study, it would also be difficult to establish cost-effective protocols for the monitoring of Tir Cynnal.

4. Improved funding for Tir Gofal could increase the delivery of good prescriptions to the extent there are likely to be more benefits at a population scale. Currently, annual capping of the number of entrants may be hampering this.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SEWBReC and BIS, Dan Foreman (Swansea University), North Wales Wildlife Trust and Carmarthenshire County Council for the provision of brown hare distribution data. Radnorshire, Brecknock and Gwent Wildlife Trusts for assistance in the gathering of brown hare data. Liz Halliwel for comments and advice on brown hare key areas and Rob Strachan (Environment Agency Wales) and Dan Forman (Swansea University) for providing literature, advice and comments on water voles. Dan Burgess and Emyr Jones (Tir Gofal Project Officers) for specific advice on Tir Gofal management prescriptions. Mr Edwards (Landowner) for permission of access and information on the practical delivery of Tir Gofal for water vole. Madeleine Havard (Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales) for comments on the manuscript. CCW for advice on Figure 73. All those who voluntarily survey and submit results to Butterflies for the New Millenium and to the NBMP schemes. Countryside Council for Wales, JNCC, Lucy Wright, Philip Briggs.


99

7 REFERENCES Aars, J., Xavier, L., Denny, R., Griffin, A.C., 2000. Water Vole and American Mink in the Scottish Uplands: Metapopulation Persistence Behind and Ahead of the Invasion Front. Dept. Zoology. University of Aberdeen.

Adams, A.W., 1955. Succisa pratensis Moench (Scabiosa succisa L.). Journal of Ecology, 43: 709-718.

ADAS, 1995. Socio Economic Assessment of Tir Cymen. Unpublished report to the CCW.

ADAS, 2001. Ecological evaluation of the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme, 1998–2000, In Report to MAFF. ADAS, Newcastle.

Aebischer, N.J., Ewald, J., 2004. Managing the UK grey partridge Perdix perdix recovery: population change, reproduction, habitat and shooting. In Ecology and conservation of lowland farmland birds II: The road to recovery. Ibis 146, 181-191.

Aebischer, N.J., Green, R.E., Evans A.D., 2000. From science to recovery: four case studies of how research has been translated into conservation action in the UK. In Ecology and conservation of lowland farmland birds (ed N.J. Aebischer, A.D. Evans, P.V. Grice & J.A. Vickery) pp 43-54. Tring, UK. British Ornithologists Union.

Altringham, J.D., 2003. British Bats. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., London.

Ambrosini, R., Bolzern, A.M., Canova, L., Arieni, S., Moller, A.P., Saino, N., The distribution and colony size of barn swallows in relation to agricultural land use. 2002. Journal of Applied Ecology 39, 524-534.

Anderson, P., Rogers, S., 2003. Creating Habitat for Water Vole and Other Species in an Upland Environment, In Water Vole in the Uplands: A National Conference. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. Losehill Hall Derbyshire.

Anon, 2003. Assessment of the suitability of wet grassland sites for the Marsh Fritillary in North Brecknock and West Radnorshire. Unpublished report for Powys County Council.

Asher, J., Warren, M., Fox, R., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G., Jeffcoate, S., 2002. The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies and Moths in Great Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press.

Ball, H.F., 2000. The Value of Stillwater Fisheries for Water Voles (Arvicola terrestris) in North Staffordshire, In School of Sciences. Staffordshire University.

Barlow, K.E., 1997. The diets of two phonic types of the bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus in Britain. Journal of Zoology 243, 597-609.

Barnes, R.F.W., Tapper, S.C., Williams, J., 1983. Use of pastures by brown hares. Journal of Applied Ecology 20, 179-185.

Barnett, A., 2007. Agri-environmental policy: a European overview. Aspects of Applied Biology 81, 1-6.

Barnett, L.K., Warren, M.S., 1995a. Species action plan - Marsh Fritillary, Eurodryas aurinia. Butterfly Conservation, Dorset.

Barnett, L.K., Warren, M.S., 1995b. Species action plan - Small Pearl-bordered Fritillary Boloria selene. Butterfly Conservation, Dorset.

Barreto, G.R., Macdonald, D.W., 1999. The Response of Water Voles, Arvicola terrestris, to the Odours of Predators. Animal Behaviour 57, 1107-1112.

Barreto, G.R., Macdonald, D.W., Strachan, R., 1998. The Tightrope Hypothesis: an Explanation of Plummeting Water Vole Numbers in the Thames Catchment, In United Kingdom Floodplains. eds R.G. Bailey, P.V. Rose, B.R. Sherwood. Westbury Publishing Ltd.

Barrett-Hamilton, G.E.H., Hilton, M.A.C., 1910-21. A History of British Mammals. Guerney and Jackson, London.


100

Bat Conservation Trust, 2007. The National Bat Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2006. JNCC/Bat Conservation Trust.

Battersby, J.E., Tracking Mammals Partnership, 2005. Mammals: Species Status and Population Trends. First Report by the Tracking Mammals Partnership. JNCC/Tracking Mammals Partnership, Peterborough.

Bayliss, J., 2005. Riparian habitat improvements for water voles in the Snowdonia National Park. Area 5, Afon Mawddach and Afon Lliw and Area6, Afon Llugwy and Nant Gwryd. Mammaliaid Eryri.

Berg, A., 1992. Factors affecting nest-site choice and reproductive success of Curlews Numenius arquata on farmland. Ibis 134, 44-51.

Bink, F.A., 1992. Ecologische atlas van de dagvlinders van Nordwest-Europa. Schuyt and Co, Haarlem.

Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group, 2007. Report on the Species and Habitat Review. BRIG.

Blackstock, T.H., Stevens, J.P., Howe, E.A., Stevens, D.P., 1995. Changes in the extent and fragmentation of heathland and other semi-natural habitats between 1920-22 and 1987-88 in the Llŷn peninsula, Wales, UK. Biological Conservation 72, 33-44.

Bontadina, F., Schofield, H., Naef-Daenzer, B., 2002. Radio-tracking reveals that lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros) forage in woodland. Journal of Zoology 258, 281-290.

Boonman, M., 2000. Roost selection by noctules (Nyctalus noctula) and Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii). Journal of Zoology 251, 385-389.

Bourn, N., Warren, M., 1998. Species action plan – Brown Hairstreak Thecla betulae. Butterfly Conservation, Dorset.

Bourn, N., Warren, M., 1997. Species action plan - Large Heath Coenonympha tullia. Butterfly Conservation, Dorset.

Bradbury, R.B., Kyrkos, A., Morris, A.J., Clark S.C., Perkins, A.J., Wilson J.D., 2000. Habitat associations and breeding success of yellowhammers on lowland farmland. Journal Applied Ecology 37, 789-805.

Braithwaite, M.E., Ellis, R.W., Preston, C.D., 2006. Change in the British Flora 1987-2004. London: Botanical Society of the British Isles.

Bray, Y., Devillard, S., Marboutin, E., Mauvy, B., Peroux, R., 2007. Natal dispersal of European hare in France. Journal of Zoology 273, 426-434.

Brereton, T., Wigglesworth, T., Warren, M.S., Stewart, K., 2005. BD1446: Agri-environment schemes and butterflies: re-assessing the impacts and improving delivery of BAP targets. Butterfly Conservation Final Project Report, supplied to Defra.

Bresinski, W., 1983. The effect of some habitat factors on the spatial distribution of a hare population during the winter. Acta Theriologica 28, 435-441.

Briggs, P., 1995. Bats in barns. Hertfordshire Natural History Society Transactions 32, 237-244.

Brown, C.F., Edwards, A., 2006. Identification of Priorities for Wetlands, Flood Risk and Diffuse Pollution Control within Future High Tier Targeted AES’s. Countryside Council for Wales Policy Research Report Number 06-13.

Bulman, C.R., Wilson, R.J., Holt, A.R., Bravo, L.G., Early, R.I, Warren, M.S., Thomas, C.D., 2007. Minimum viable metapopulation size, extinction debt, and the conservation of a declining species. Ecological Applications 17, 460-1473.

Butterfly Conservation, 2007. Factsheet - Small Pearl-bordered Fritillary, Boloria selene. Butterfly Conservation, Dorset.

Butterflies Under Threat Team (BUTT), 1986. The Management of Chalk Downland for Butterflies, Focus on Nature Conservation Series, No. 17. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.Byfield, A., Stewart,


101

N., 2007. Plantlife Back from the Brink Species Dossiers: Marsh Clubmoss (Lycopodiella inundata). Salisbury: Plantlife International.

Calladine, J., 2002. Verification of current management prescriptions advocated for black grouse in the UK: A literature review. RSPB, Sandy.

Carter, S.P., Bright, P.W., 2003. Reedbeds as refuges for water vole (Arvicola terrestris) from predation by introduced mink (Mustela vison). Biological Conservation 111, 371-376.

Catto, C.M.C., Hutson, A.M., Racey, P.A., Stephenson, P.J., 1996. Foraging behaviour and habitat use of the serotine bat (Eptesicus serotinus) in southern England. Journal of Zoology 238, 623-633.

Chamberlain, D.E., Wilson, J.D., Fuller, R.J., 1999 A comparison of bird populations on organic and conventional farm systems in southern Britain. Biological Conservation 88, 307-320.

Cheffings, C.M., Farrell, L. (Eds), Dines, T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., McKean D.R., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J., Taylor, I., 2005. The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status 7: 1-191. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Colman, J., Dimblebee, P., Giles, E., Jones, B., Robertson, B., Tippett, M., 2007. Tir Gofal. Auditor General for Wales, Wales Audit Office, Cardiff.

Conrad, K.F., Warren, M.S., Fox, R., Parsons, M.S., Woiwood, I.P., 2006. Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biological Conservation 132, 279-291.

Cowan, D., 2004. An overview of the current status and protection of the Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) in the UK. DEFRA.

Critchley, C.N.R., Hodkinson, D.J., 1999. Potential benefits to water voles (Arvicola terrestris) of waterside buffer strips in an agri-environment scheme. Aspects of Applied Biology 54, 179-184.

Curry, D., 2002. Farming and food – a sustainable future, report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. Cabinet Office, London.

Curry, J.P., 1987. The invertebrate fauna of grassland and its influence on productivity. Factors affecting the abundance and composition of fauna. Grass and Forage Science 42, 197-212.Davidson-Watts, I., Jones, G., 2006. Differences in foraging behaviour between Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) and P. pygmaeus (Leach 1825). Grass And Forage Science 42, 325-341.

Davies, R., 2001. Back from the Brink Management Series: Managing your land for Chamomile. London: Plantlife International.

Defra, 2003. Agricultural practice and bats: A review of current research literature and management recommendations. Defra report (BD2005).

Dennis, R.L.H., Shreeve, T.G., Dyck, H , 2006. Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 1943-1966.

Dennis, R.L.H., Shreeve, T.G., Sparks, T.H., 1998. The effects of island area, isolation and source population size on the presence of the grayling butterfly Hipparchia semele (L.) (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae) on British and Irish Offshore islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 7, 765-776.

Dennis, R.L.H., Eales, H.T., 1997. Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Müller, 1764) (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae): habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation. Journal of Insect Conservation 1, 167-176.

Dines, T.D., in prep, a. An analysis of threatened species in Great Britain by Broad Habitat.

Dines, T.D., in prep, b. A vascular plant Red List for Wales.

Dines, T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., D.R., M., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J., Taylor, I., 2005. The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status 7: 1-191. , eds C.M. Cheffings, L. Farrell. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.


102

Dines, T.D., Daniels, A., 2006. An Inventory of Juniper sites in Wales and an assessment of populations in Snowdonia. Bangor: Plantlife Wales.

Donald, P.F., Green, R.E., Heath, M.F., 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 268, 25-29.

Donald, P.F., Sanderson, F.J., Burfield, I.J., van Bommel, F.P.J., 2006. Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990-2000. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 116, 189-196.

Driver, A., 1998. Water Vole Conservation Handbook, ed. R. Strachan. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit. Department of Zoology. Uni., Oxford.

Dunstone, N., 1993. The Mink. T and A D Poyser, London.

Duvergé, P.L., Jones, G., 2003. The use of farmland habitats by greater horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrum equinum), In Conservation and Conflict - Mammals and farming in Britain eds F. Tattersall, W. Manley, pp. 64-81. Westbury Publishing, London.

Edwards, P.J., Fletcher, M.R., Berny, P., 2000. Review of the factors affecting the decline of the European brown hare, Lepus europaeus (Pallas, 1778) and the use of wildlife incident data to evaluate the significance of paraquat. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79, 95-103.

Ehrlich, P.R., 1994. Energy use and biodiversity loss. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 344:99-104.

Entwistle, A.C., Racey, P.A., Speakman, J.R., 1996. Habitat exploitation by a gleaning bat, Plecotus auritus. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B 351, 921-931.Evans, A.D., S., A.-B., Grice, P.V., 2002. The role of research and development in the evolution of a “smart” agri-environment scheme. Proceedings of AAB “Farmland Birds” conference, Edinburgh. Aspects of Applied Biology 67, 253-262.

Evans, A., Green, R., 2006. An example of a two-tiered agri-environment scheme designed to deliver effectively the ecological requirements of both localised and widespread bird species. Journal Of Ornithology 147, 21-21.

Fartmann, T., Timmermann, K., 2006. Where to find the eggs and how to manage the breeding sites of the Brown Hairstreak (Thecla betulae (Linnaeus, 1758)) in Central Europe? Nota lepidopterologica 29, 117-126.

Feber, R.E., Johnson, P.J., Firbank, L.G., Hopkins, A., Macdonald, D.W., 2007. A comparison of butterfly populations on organically and conventionally managed farmland. Journal of Zoology 273, 30-39.

Forestry Commission, 2005. Woodland management for bats. Forestry Commission for England and Wales.

Forman, D.W., 2005. An Assessment of the Local Impact of Native Predators on an Established Population of British Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris). Journal of the Zoological Society London 266, 221-226.

Fowles, A.P., Smith, R.G., 2006. Mapping the habitat quality of patch networks for the marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia (Rottenburg, 1775) (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) in Wales. Journal of Insect Conservation 10, 161-177.

Fox, R., 2001. Butterflies and moths. In The changing wildlife of Great Britain and Ireland (ed. D.L. Hawksworth), pp. 300-327. Taylor and Francis, London.

Fox, R., Asher, J., Brereton, T., Roy, D., Warren, M., 2006. The State of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. NatureBureau.

Fox, R., Warren, M.S., Asher, J., Brereton, T.M., Roy, D.B., 2007. The State of Britain’s Butterflies 2007. Butterfly Conservation and the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology, Wareham, Dorset.


103

Fuller, R.J., Atkinson, P.W., Garnett, M.C., Conway, G.J., Bibby, C.J., Johnstone, I.G., 2006. Breeding bird communities in the upland margins (ffridd) of Wales in the mid-1980's. Bird Study 53, 177-186.

Fuller, R., 2003. BD1435. Changes in lowland grassland management: effects on invertebrates and birds. Defra.

Game Conservancy Trust, 2007. http://www.gct.org.uk/brownhare/whatfarmerscando.html; accessed 14-11-2007

Game Conservancy Trust, 2008. http://www.gct.org.uk/text03.asp?PageId=55 ;accessed 04-01-2008.

Gillings, S., Newson, S.E., Noble, D.G., Vickery, J.A., 2005. Winter availability of cereal stubbles attracts decelining farmland birds and positively influences population trends. Proceedings Royal Society Britain 272, 733-739.

Gillings, S., Fuller, R., 2001. Habitat selection by skylarks Aluada arvensis wintering in Britain in 1997/98. Bird Study 48, 293-307.

Green, J., 2002. Birds in Wales 1992-2000. Welsh Ornithological Society.

Green, J., Berry, S., Pritchard, R., 2007. Classified records for 2005. Welsh Birds 4, 464-591.

Green, J., Pritchard, R., 2006. Classified records for 2004. Welsh Birds 4, 279-393.

Grice, P.V., Radley, G.P., Smallshire, D., Green, M.R., 2007. Conserving England's arable biodiversity through AES’s and other environmental policies: a brief history. Aspects of Applied Biology 81, 7-22.

Halliwell, E., C., Macdonald, D.W., 1995. American Mink Mustela vison in the Upper Thames Catchment: Relationship with Selected prey Species and Den Availability. Biological Conservation 76, 51-56.

Hansson, L., 2002. Mammal movements and foraging at remnant woodlands inside coniferous forest landscapes Forest Ecology and Management 160, 109-114.

Hardy, P.B., Sparks, T. H., Isaac, N. J. B., Dennis, R.L.H., 2007. Specialism for larval and adult consumer resources among British butterflies: Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 138, 440-452.Harrington, R., Smith, E., Hall, M., 2003. Assessing long-term trends in invertebrate biomas – a pilot study. Final Report to EN, pp. 24. Plants and Invertebrate Ecology Division, Rothamsted Research, Hertfordshire.

Hobson, R., Bourn, N., Warren, M., 2002. Conserving the Marsh Fritillary in Britain. British Wildlife 13, 404-411.

Holden, L., 2007. Plantlife Back from the Brink Species Dossiers: Pink Waxcap (Hygrocybe calyptriformis). Salisbury: Plantlife International.

Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, P.V., Evans, A.D., 2005 Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation 122, 113-130.

Holzhaider, J., Kriner, E., Rudolph, B., 2002. Radio-tracking a lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) in Bavaria: an experiment to locate roosts and foraging sites. Myotis 40, 47-54.

Hutchings, M.R., Harris, S., 1996. The Current Status of the Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) in Britain. JNCC, Peterborough.

IUCN, 2008. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org; accessed 03-01-08.

Jefferies, D.J.e., 2003. The Water Vole and Mink Survey of Britain 1996-1998 with a History of the Long-term Changes in the Status of Both Species and their Causes. Vincent Wildlife Trust, Ledbury. U.K.

Jenkins, E.V., Laine, T., Morgan, S.E., Cole, K.R., Speakman, J.R., 1998. Roost selection in the pipistrelle bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Chiroptera : Vespertilionidae), in northeast Scotland. Animal Behaviour 56, 909-917.

Jenkins, M., 2005. Environment Agency Wales: South Wales Water Vole Strategy. Environment Agency Wales.


104

Johnstone, I., Dyda, J., Lindley, P., 2006a. The population status and hatching success of curlews Numenius arquata in Wales in 2006. RSPB, Bangor.

Johnstone, I., Thorpe, R., Moore, A., Finney, S., 2007. Breeding status of Choughs Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax in the UK and Isle of Man in 2002. Bird Study 54, 23-34.

Johnstone, I.G., Gray, C.M., Noble, D., 2005. The state of birds in Wales 2004. RSPB Cymru, Cardiff.

Johnstone, I.G., Thorpe, R.I., D.G., N., 2006b. The state of birds in Wales 2005. RSPB Cymru, Cardiff.

Johnstone, I.G., Thorpe, R.I., Noble, D., Whitehead, S., Cranswick, P.A., 2004. The state of birds in Wales 2003. RSPB Cymru, Cardiff.

Jones, G., Barrett. E.M., 1999. Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed designation of neotypes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56, 182-186.

Jones, P.S., Stevens, D.P., Blackstock, T.H., Burrows, C.R., Howe, E.A., 2003. Priority habitats of Wales, a technical guide. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Johnstone, I.J., 2004. Conservation Management for Choughs: a Review. Unpublished RSPB report.

Jordan, M., Netherton, C., 1999. The Ecology of Lowland River Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris) Populations and Key Considerations for Conducting Mitigation Work, In Water Vole Conference, October 1999.

Joy, J., 1991a. The ecology and life history of the Large Heath butterfly (Coenonympha tullia) on the Shropshire/Clwyd Mosses. British Ecological Society Bulletin 22, 114-118.

Joy, J., 1991b. Observations on the Large Heath butterfly (Coenonympha tullia) in Shropshire and Clwydd in 1990 and 1991. Butterfly Conservation, Occasional paper 3, Dedham, Essex.

Joy, J., Pullin, A.S., 1997. The effects of flooding on the survival and behaviour over overwintering Large Heath butterfly Coenonympha tullia larvae. Biological Conservation 82, 61-66.

Joy, J., Bourn, N., 1998. National Action Plan for Wales. Butterfly Conservation Wales.

Kaluzinski, J., Pielowski, Z., 1976. The effect of technical agricultural operations on the hare population, In Ecology and management of European hare populations eds Z. Pielowski, Z. Pucek, pp. 205-211. Polish Hunting Association

Karmiris, I.E., Nastis, A.S., 2006. Intensity of livestock grazing in relation to habitat use by brown hares (Lepus europaeus) Journal of Zoology 271, 193-197.

King, G., 2003. Habitat Requirements of the Small Heath Butterfly Coenonympha pamphilus and the Impacts of Conservation Management and Agri-environment Schemes. (Unpublished Thesis). UCL.

Kleijn, D., 2006. Ecological effects of agri-environment schemes on birds in different European countries. Journal Of Ornithology 147, 20-21.

Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R., Gilissen, N., 2001. Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature 413, 723-725.

Kleijn, D., Sutherland, W.J., 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 947-969.

Konvicka, M., Hula, V., Fric, Z., 2003. Habitat of pre-hibernating larvae of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas aurinia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): What can be learned from vegetation composition and architecture? European Journal of Entomology 100, 313-322.

Kragten, S., Trimbos, K.B., de Snoo, G.R. (in press) Breeding Skylarks on organic and conventional arable farms in the Netherlands: the effects of cropping pattern and crop management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.


105

Kunst, P.J.G., van der Wal, R., van Wieren, S., 2001. Home ranges of brown hares in a natural salt marsh: comparisons with agricultural systems. Acta Theriologica 46, 287-294.

Lambin, X., Telfer, S., Denny. R., 1999. The roles of isolation and mink predation in water vole metapopulations. Peoples Trust for Endangered Species. London.

Lavery, T.A., 1993. A Review of the Distribution, Ecology and Status of the Marsh Fritillary Euphydryas aurinia Rottemburg, 1775 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in Ireland. Journal of the Irish Naturalist, 24, 192-199.

Lawrence, M.J., Brown, R.W., 1967. Mammals of Britain, Their Tracks, Trails and Signs. Blandford Press, London.

Lewandowski, K., Nowakowski, J.J., 1993. Spatial-distribution of brown hare Lepus europaeus populations in habitats of various types of agriculture. Acta Theriologica 38, 435-442.

Lewis, O.T., Hurford, C., 1997. Assessing the status of the Marsh Fritillary butterfly (Eurodryas aurinia): an example from Glamorgan, UK. Journal of Insect Conservation 1, 159-166.

Limpens, H.J.G.A., Kapteyn, K., 1991. Bats, their behaviour and linear landscape elements. Myotis 29, 39-48.

Lindley, P.J., Johnstone, I., Mellenchip, C., Young, A., 2007. The status of male black grouse Tetrao tetrix in Wales in 2005 and a comparison with previous surveys. Welsh Birds 5, 42-50.

Lovegrove, R., Williams, G., Williams, I., 1994. Birds in Wales. TandAD Poyser, London.

Luckens, C.J., 1978. Euphydryas aurina Rott. In Britain: Notes on Distribution and Life History. Entomologist’s Record 90, 108-112.

Lundström-Gilliéron, C.a.S., R. (2003) . Ecological Modelling: 283-301., 2003. Hare abundance as an indicator for urbanisation and intensification of agriculture in Western Europe. Ecological Modelling 168, Issue 3, 283-301.

Macdonald, D., Baker, S., 2005. The State of Britain’s Mammals 2005. Mammals Trust U.K., London.

Macdonald, D., Strachan, R., 1999. The Mink and the Water Vole: Analyses for Conservation. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit. Dept. Zoology. University of Oxford, Oxford.

Macdonald, D.W., Tattersall, F.H., Service, K.M., Firbank, L.G., Feber, R.E., 2007. Mammals, agri-environment schemes and set-aside – what are the putative benefits? Mammal Review 37, 259–277.

MacPherson, J., 2006. Key Sites Water Vole Project, In Wales Mammal Conference 2006. Aberystwyth.

Maes, D., Ghesquiere, A., Logie, M., Bonte, D., 2006. Habitat use and mobility of two threatened coastal dune insects: implications for conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation 10, 105-115.

Mason, J., 2005. The Hare. Mason Unwin Books.

McAney, C.M., Fairley, J.S., 1988. Habitat Preference and Overnight and Seasonal-Variation in the Foraging Activity of Lesser Horseshoe Bats. Acta Theriologica 33, 393-402.

McBride, A., 2005. Back from the Brink Management Series: Managing Uplands for Juniper. Stirling: Plantlife Scotland.

McCracken, D.I., 1995. Short note on potential environmental problems of cattle and sheep anthelmintics, In Extensive Farming Systems Unit Briefing Paper 7. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Paisley.

Melling, T.M., 1987. The ecology and population structure of a butterfly cline. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Newcastle.

Meriggi, A., Alieri, R., 1989. Factors affecting brown hare density in northern Italy Ethology, Ecology and edvolution 1, 255-264.

Milanaova, Z.B., Dimov, S.B., 1990. Losses of offsprings in the population of Lepus europaeus Pall. 1978 at mechanized harvest of alfalfa. Oecologia 23, 47-51.


106

Mills, J., Gibbon, D., Dwyer, J., Short, C., Ingram, J., 2006. Identification of Delivery Mechanisms for Welsh Top-Tier Agri Environment Schemes. Countryside Council for Wales Policy Research Report Number 06-15.

Mitchell-Jones, A.J., Amori, G., Bogdanowicz, W., Krystufek, B., Reijnders, P.J.H., Spitzenberger, F., Stubbe, M., Thissen, J.B.M., Vohralík, V., Zima, J., 1999. Atlas of European Mammals. T. and A.D. Poyser.

Moller, A.P., 2001. The effect of dairy farming on barn swallow Hirundo rustica abundance, distribution and reproduction. Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 378-389.

Moore, N.P., Parrott, D., Hart, J.D., Langton, S.D., Aegerter, J., StPier, S., Hall, A., Allcock, J., Frantz, A., Palphramand, K., Hutson, A.M., submitted. Habitat usage by bats in the Lower Derwent Valley, In Proceedings of a PLACE Conference on the Lower Derwent.

Motte, G., Libois, R., 2002. Conservation of the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros Bechstein, 1800) (Mammalia : Chiroptera) in Belgium. A case study of feeding habitat requirements. Belgian Journal of Zoology 132, 49-54.

National Assembly for Wales, 2003. Going Wild in Wales: List of species and habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.

Natural England, 2007. Natural England Species Information Note SIN001 Brown Hare.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006.

Newton, I., 2004. The recent declines of farmland bird populations in Britain: an appraisal of causal factors and conservation actions. Ibis 146, 579-600.

Noble, D., Carter, P., Harris, S., Leech, D., Poulton, S., Shearer, G., 2005. Winter mammal monitoring- a pilot study. BTO research report No. 410, The Mammal Society research report No. 5.

Norris, D.A., Stevens, P.A., 1999. Identification of areas suitable for lowland heathland re-creation on Anglesey - Final report. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (CEH), Bangor.

Oakeley, S.F., Jones, G., 1998. Habitat around maternity roosts of the 55 kHz phonic type of pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). Journal of Zoology 245, 222-228.

Parry, R.J., 2006. The Importance of Stillwater Fisheries and their Management for the Conservation of the Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris) in Wales. Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales.

Pepin, D., 1989. Variation in Survival of Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) Leverets from Different Farmland Areas in the Paris Basin. Journal of Applied Ecology 26 13-23.

Pepin, D., Angbault, J., 2007. Selection of resting sites by the European hare as related to habitat characteristics during agricultural changes. European Journal of Wildlife Research 53, 183-189.

Pikula, J., Beklová, M., Holešovská, Z., Treml, F., 2004. Ecology of European Brown Hare and Distribution of Natural Foci of Tularaemia in the Czech Republic. Acta Veterinaria Brunensis 73, 267-273.

Porter, K., 1981. The population dynamics of small populations of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Oxford University.

Porter, K., 1982. Basking behaviour in larvae of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia larvae. Oikos 38, 308-312.

Preston, C.D., Pearman, D.A., Dines, T.D., 2002a. New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Preston, C.D., Telfer, M.G., Arnold, H.R., P.D., C., Cooper, J.M., Dines, T.D., Pearman, D.A., D.B., R., Smart, S.M., 2002b. The changing flora of the UK. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.

Preston, C.D., Telfer, M.G., Roy D.B., Carey P.D., Hill, M.O., Meek, W.R., Rothery, P., Smart, S.M., Smith, G.M., Walker, K.J., 2003. The changing distribution of the Flora of the United Kingdom: Technical Report. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Huntingdon.Price, D., 2007a. Back from the Brink Species Briefing Sheet: Marsh Clubmoss (Lycopodiella inundata). Plantlife International, Salisbury.


107

Price, D., 2007b. Back from the Brink Species Briefing Sheet: Pilwort (Pilularia globulifera). Plantlife International, Salisbury.

Price, D., 2007c. Back from the Brink Species Briefing Sheet: Three-lobed Water-crowfoot (Ranunculus tripartitus). Plantlife International, Salisbury.

Raven, M.J., Noble, D.G., Baillie, S.R., 2007. The Breeding Bird Survey 2006. BTO Research Report 471, British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.

Reaston, Knightbridge, 1997. Tir Cymen first evaluation report. Report to CCW.

Reid, N., McDonald, R.A., Montgomery, W.I., 2007. Mammals and agri-environment schemes: hare haven or pest paradise? Journal of Applied Ecology DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01336.x.

Richardson, P., 2000. Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland 1980-1999. Bat Conservation Trust.

Reid, J.M., Bignal, E.M., Bignal, S., McCracken, D.I., Monaghan, P., 2004. Identifying the demographic determinants of population growth rates: a case study of red-billed choughs Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. Journal Animal Ecology, 73 777-788.

Robinson, M.F., Stebbings, R.E., 1997. Home range and habitat use by the serotine bat, Eptesicus serotinus, in England. Journal of Zoology 243, 117-136.

Robinson, R.A., Sutherland, W.J., 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 39, 157-176.

Rödel, H.G., Völkl, W., Kilias, P., 2004. Winter browsing of brown hares: evidence for diet breadth expansion. Mammalian Biology 69, 1410-1419.

RSPB, 2003. Species Action Plan: Black grouse. RSPB unpublished.

Rühe, F., Hohmann, U., 2004. Seasonal locomotion and home-range characteristics of European hares (Lepus europaeus) in an arable region in central Germany. European Journal of Wildlife Research 50, 101-111.

Rundlöf, M., Bengtsson, J., Henrik, S., in press. Local and landscape effects of organic farming on butterfly species richness and abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology.

Rural Development Service, 2005. Technical Advice Note 41. The brown hare. DEFRA.

Rushton, S.P., Barreto, G.W., Cormack, R.M., Macdonald, D.W., Fullers, R., 2000. Modelling the effects of Mink and habitat fragmentation on the Water Vole. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 475-490.

Russ, J.M., Montgomery, W.I., 2002. Habitat associations of bats in Northern Ireland: implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 108, 49-58.

Schober, W., Grimmberger, E., 1989. A Guide to Bats of Britain and Europe. Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd.

Schofield, H., Messenger, J., Birks, J., Jermyn, D., 2002. Foraging and roosting behaviour of lesser horseshoe bats at the Ciliau, Radnor. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, Ledbury.

Shepherd, M., Pearce, B., Cormack, B., Phillips, L., Cuttle, S., Bhogal, A., Costigan, P., Unwin, R., 2003. An Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of Organic Farming. Defra, ADAS, Elm Farm Research and IGER.

Shreeve, T.G., 1992. ‘Adult Behaviour’, in Dennis, R.L.H. (ed.) The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain. pp 22-45. Oxford University Press. Shreeve, T.G., 1995. ‘Butterfly Mobility’, in Pullin, A.S. (ed.) Ecology and Conservation of Butterflies. pp 37-45. Chapman and Hall, London.

Shrubb, M., 2007. The Lapwing. TandAD Poyser, London.

Siriwardena, G.M., Baillie, S.R., Buckland, S.T., Fewster, R.M., Marchant, J.H., Wilson, J.D., 1998. Trends in the abundance of farmland birds: a quantitative comparison of smoothed Common Birds Census indices. Journal of Applied Ecology 35, 24-43.


108

Smith, R., Williams, C.L., 2007. Brown Hairstreak (Thecla betulae) in the Brecon Beacons National Park and Ceredigion: Egg Surveys and Habitat Assessment 2005-2007. Unpublished report for Butterfly Conservation.

Smith, R.G. and Clark, M.J., 2005. Brown Hairstreak (Thecla betulae) in Carmarthenshire: egg surveys and habitat assessment 2002 to 2004. Butterfly Conservation Report No. S05-10. Butterfly Conservation.

Smith, R.K., Jennings, N.V., Harris, S., 2005a. A quantitative analysis of the abundance and demography of European hares Lepus europaeus in relation to habitat type, intensity of agriculture and climate. Mammal Review 35, 1-24.

Smith, R.K., Jennings, N.V., Robinson, A., Harris, S., 2004. Conservation of European hares Lepus europaeus in Britain: is increasing habitat heterogeneity in farmland the answer? Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 1092-1102.

Smith, R.K., Jennings, N.V., Tataruch, F., Hackländer, K., Harris, S., 2005b. Vegetation quality and habitat selection by European hares Lepus europaeus in a pastural landscape. Acta Theriologica 50, 391-404.

Species and Habitats Review Report 2007.

Stewart, A., Pearman D.A., Preston C.D., 1994. Scarce Plants in Britain. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Stewart, K.E.J., Bourn, N.A.D., 2004. The Status, Mobility and Habitat Requirements of the Small Pearl-bordered Fritillary (Boloria selene) in Clocaenog Forest. An Overview of Three Years Work. Butterfly Conservation Contract Report to Forest Research: Report No. S04-11. Butterfly Conservation, Dorset.

Still, K., Byfield, A., 2007. New priorities for Arable Plant Conservation. Plantlife International, Salisbury.

Strachan, C., Strachan, R., Jefferies, D., 2000. Preliminary Report on the Status and Distribution of the Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris) in Britain1996-1998. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, London.

Strachan, R., 1998. Water Vole Conservation Handbook. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit. Department of Zoology. Oxford University, Oxford.

Strachan, R., 2006. Population and Persistence: identifying key areas for water vole in Wales and beyond, a review. Environment Agency Wales, Bangor.

Strachan, R., Bonesi, L., 1998. Water Vole Survey of the River Teifi 1997-1998, In Science Report 297. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Strachan, R., Holmes-Ling, P., 2003. Restoring water vole and other biodiversity to the wider countryside. A report on the Chichester coastal plain sustainable farming partnership. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit. Oxford. Strachan, R., Jefferies, D.J., 1993. The Water Vole Arvicola terrestris in Britain 1989-1990: Its Distribution and Changing Status. Vincent Wildlife Trust, Ledbury, UK.

Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T., Macdonald, D.W., 2003. Enhancing habitat for riparian mammals on agricultural land. Conservation and Conflicts. Westbury Publishing.

Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T., 2006. Water Vole Conservation Handbook. Second Edition. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, Oxford.

Stubbs, A.E., 2001. Flies. In the changing wildlife of Great Britain and Ireland (ed. D.L. Hawksworth). pp.239-261. Taylor and Francis, London.

Swift, S.M., Racey, P.A., 1983. Resource Partitioning in 2 Species of Vespertilionid Bats (Chiroptera) Occupying the Same Roost. Journal of Zoology 200, 249-259.

Tapper, S., 2001. Brown Hare. Technical appendix to ecological evaluation of the arable stewardship pilot scheme 1998–2000. ADAS, Wolverhampton, UK.

Tapper, S.C., 1987. The Brown Hare. Shire Natural History

Tapper, S.C., Barnes, R.F.W., 1986. Influence of farming practice on the ecology of the brown hare Lepus europaeus. Journal of Applied Ecology 23, 39-52.


109

The Berne Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 1976.

The EC Directive on Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora 1992 (92/43/EEC).

The Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981.

Thomas, J.A., 2005. Monitoring the change and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360, 399-397.

Thomas, J.A., Lewington, R., 1991. The Butterflies of Britain and Ireland. Dorling Kindersley, London.

Thomas, J.A., Telfer, M.G., Roy, D.B., Preston, C.D., Greenwood, J.J.D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R.T., Lawton, J.H., 2004. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303, 1879-1881.

Thorpe, R.I., Young, A., 2002. The population status of birds in Wales: an analysis of conservation concern, 2002-2007. Welsh Birds 3, 289-302.

Thorpe, R.I., Young, A., 2003. The population status of birds in Wales: an analysis of conservation concern: 2002-2007. RSPB Cymru, Cardiff.

Thulin, C.G., 2003. The distribution of mountain hares Lepus timidus in Europe: a challenge from brown hares L. europaeus? Mammal Review 33, 29-42.

Tracking Mammals Partnership, 2007. UK mammals update 2007. Tracking Mammals Partnership.

Turner, J.R.G., 1963. A quantitative study of a Welsh colony of the Large Heath butterfly, Coenonympha tullia Müller (Lepidoptera). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society A 38, 101-112.

U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan, 1995. Steering Group Report – Volume II: Action Plans Tranche 1, Vol 2.

UK Biodiversity Group, 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan. http://www.ukbap.org.uk/; accessed Jan 2008.

University of Bristol, 2003. Integrating farm management practices with brown hare conservation in pastural habitats. Final report on Defra Project BD 1436.

van der Wal, R., Kunst, P., Drent, R., 1998. Interactions between hare and brent goose in a salt marsh system; evidence for food competition? Oecologia 117, 227-234.

Vaughan, N., 1997. The diets of British bats (Chiroptera). Mammal Review 27, 77-94.

Vaughan, N., Jones, G., Harris, S., 1996. Effects of sewage effluent on the activity of bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) foraging along rivers. Biological Conservation 78, 337-343.

Vaughan, N., Lucas, E., Harris, S., White, P.C.L., 2003. Habitat associations of European hares Lepus europaeus in England and Wales: implications for farmland management. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 163-175.

Verboom, B., Huitema, H., 1997. The importance of linear landscape elements for the pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and the serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus. Landscape Ecology 12, 117-125.

Vickery, J.A., Tallowin J.R., Feber, R.E., Asteraki, E.J., Atkinson, P.W., Brown, V.K., 2001. The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 647-664.

Vickery, J.A., Bradbury, R.B., Henderson, I.G., Eaton, M.A., Grice, P.V., 2004. The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England. Biological Conservation 119, 19-39.

Walsh, A.L., Harris, S., 1996a. Factors determining the abundance of vespertilionid bats in Britain: Geographical, land class and local habitat relationships. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, 519-529.

Walsh, A.L., Harris, S., 1996b. Foraging habitat preferences of vespertilionid bats in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, 508-518.


110

Walsh, J., Hall, C., 2005. The Status of Water Voles in Two Upland Catchments in Wales. Countryside Council for Wales.

Ward, L., 2007. Plantlife Back from the Brink Species Dossiers: Juniper (Juniperus communis). Plantlife International, Salisbury.

Warren, M.S., 1990. The Conservation of Eurodryas aurinia in the United Kingdom. Environmental Encounters Series No. 10. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Warren, M.S., 1993. A review of butterfly conservation in central southern Britain. II. Site management and habitat selection of key species. Biological Conservation 64, 37-49.

Warren, M.S., 1994. The UK status and suspected metapopulation structure of a threatened European butterfly, the Marsh Fritillary Eurodryas aurinia T. Biological Conservation 67, 239-249.

Warren, R., 1999. Ratty In Danger of Extinction. We Must Act Now. Countryside Council for Wales: Press Release 13/06/1999: Available at: http://wwww.ccw.gov.uk/news/index.cfm?action=PressandID=319andlang=en [Accessed 09/05/2006].

Waters, D., Jones, G., Furlong, M., 1999. Foraging ecology of Leisler's bat (Nyctalus leisleri) at two sites in southern Britain. Journal of Zoology 249, 173-180.

Welsh Assembly Government, 2005. Sustainable development indicators for Wales 2005. available at: www.wales.gov.uk/keypubstatisticsforwalesheadline/content/sustainable/2005/hdw200503221-e.htm.

Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire County Council and the Countryside Council for Wales, 2005. A review and synthesis of published information and practical experience on bat conservation within a fragmented landscape. An occasional report by the three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire County Council and the Countryside Council for Wales.

Wickman, P.O., Garcia-Barros, E., Rappe-George, C., 1994. The location of land mark leks in the Small Heath butterfly Coenonympha pamphilus: evidence against the hot-spot model. Behavioural Ecology 6, 39-45.

Wickramasinghe, L.P., Harris, S., Jones, J., Vaughan, N., 2003. Bat activity and species richness on organic and conventional farms: impact of agricultural intensification. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 984-993.

Wigginton, M.J., 1999. British Red Data Books. 1. Vascular plants, edn 3. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Wigglesworth, T. (Ed.), 2005. Action for the Brown Hairstreak: sharing good practice. In: Proceedings from a Butterfly Conservation Seminar. January 2005. Butterfly Conservation Report No. S05-04 19p. Butterfly Conservation, Dorset.

Wilberforce, L., 2006. Brown hare survey of Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion and Montgomeryshire. Countryside Council for Wales.

Williamson, K., 2003. Snowdonia’s Upland Water Voles, In Water Vole in the Uplands: A National Conference. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. Losehill Hall Derbyshire.

Wilson, P., King, M., 2003. Arable Plants – A field guide. WildGuides Ltd., Old Basing.

Wilson, A.M., Vickery A.J., Brown, S.J., 2001. Numbers and distribution of northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus breeding in England and Wales in 1998. Bird Study 48, 2-17.

Winspear, R., Davies, G., 2005. A management guide to birds of lowland farmland. The RSPB, Sandy.

Woodman, J.P., Fowles, A.P., 2002. Action for the marsh fritillary in Wales. CCW Natural Science Report No 02/5/03, Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Woods, R., 2007. Back from the Brink Species Briefing Sheet: Pink Waxcap (Hygrocybe calyptriformis). Plantlife International, Salisbury.


111

Wotton, S.R., Peach, W.J., 2007. Population changes and summer habitat associations of breeding cirl buntings Emberiza cirlus and other farmland birds in relation to measures provided through the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in Devon, England. RSPB Report, Sandy.

Yalden, D., 1999. The history of British mammals. T and A. D. Poyser.


112

8 APPENDICES 8.1 Appendix 1: Plants 8.1.1 Distribution, populations and key areas 8.1.1.1 Arable plant communities Arable species in Wales are now largely confined to two broad areas. The most important assemblage of species is found on light acidic soils in the west. This group of species is significant nationally because most threatened arable species in the UK are found on calcareous soils in England, especially on those derived from chalk. By contrast, this group prefers acidic soils derived from sand, siltstones, mudstones and shales. It includes species such as small-flowered catchfly, weasels’-snout and corn marigold. The majority of sites are now found around the Welsh coast, especially Gower, Pembrokeshire, south Cardiganshire and the Lleyn peninsula. The other group is more characteristic of the species assemblages found in England on base-rich soils, usually well-drained soils derived from limestone but sometimes overlying heavier alkaline clays. These are rarer in Wales but occur in the Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouthshire, Flintshire and small parts of Denbighshire and Montgomeryshire. In Wales is assemblage includes fewer threatened species, but shepherd’s-needle is characteristic of it. A two-stage process was employed to identify Key Areas for arable species in Wales. Firstly, hotspots of high arable species diversity were mapped. The arable habitat is a highly specialised one and contains a relatively narrow group of plant species that are often confined to cultivated ground. Because of this specialisation, it is coincidence of these characteristic species. In order to focus on the more important arable areas, however, only threatened (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable) arable species from the new UK Red List (Cheffings and Farrell 2005) were mapped. For this exercise, the only comprehensive mapping data available comes from the New Atlas and exists at the 10-km square level (Preston et al. 2002a). Therefore, any 10-km square in Wales from which two or more of the above species have been recorded in the most recent date-class (1987 onwards) in the New Atlas were selected as part of the Arable Plant Key Area. Second, the occurrence of UK BAP priority arable species was overlain onto the 10-km square hotspots. Any 10-km square in which any UK BAP priority arable species has been recorded in an arable habitat since 2000 was automatically included in the Key Area. Non-focal species contributing to this process are highlighted in section 8.5.2. This analysis resulted in the selection of 83 10-km squares (Figure 65) that form the arable plant Key Area. Although the 10-km square is a relatively coarse unit with which to define Key Areas, the best available data is being used and arable areas tend to be rather broad anyway, with mosaics of good or suitable habitat scattered widely across the landscape. There is a high degree of correlation between the Key Areas selected using this method and the occurrence of arable habitat within 1-km squares in Wales (Jones et al. 2003).


113

Figure 65 Arable plant Key Areas. Defined by the 10-km square occurrence of any of the five priority arable plant species plus any other 10-km square in which 2 or more threatened Red Data List arable plant species have been recorded since 1987.

In order to relate Tir Gofal prescription scoring to the requirements of actual species on the ground, the following species were selected as representative of the arable group as a whole. They vary in their preference of soil type (acidic or base-rich), germination period (spring or autumn), seed longevity (a few years to decades) and rarity (very localised or widespread but declining). All these species were included in the analysis of hotspots. 8.1.1.1.1 small-flowered catchfly This diminutive annual is highly characteristic of the uncommon acidic-soil arable species assemblage found in western Britain. It is now found in very scattered locations across Wales. Most of the recent records come from Pembrokeshire, around Pwllcrochan and St Ishmael’s on Milford Haven and near St Nicholas south of Strumble head. Further north along this coast is occurs at several sites in Cardiganshire, especially near Mwnt where it is a feature of the Mwnt Arable Fields SSSI. One of the biggest populations in Wales is on the south Gower coast near Southgate. It occurs at three other locations (one in Burry Port, Carmarthenshire and two sites on the north Wales coast near Colwyn Bay and Abergele) but these are in non-arable habitats and are excluded from this study. 8.1.1.1.2 shepherd’s-needle This is one of the few arable species in Wales restricted to base-rich soils and is more characteristic of arable assemblages in eastern England. There are just four known sites for this species in Wales. The largest is around Summerhouse Point in the Vale of Glamorgan, where it can occur in huge populations in fields on various farms, and along the Heritage Coast pathway. Also in the Vale it occurs on a farm near St Athan. In north Wales, a small but important population was found in 2007 on a farm near Llyn Helyg in Flintshire. The last population occurs at The Mumbles on Gower, where it grows in a private garden on a recently built estate. Although this garden lies on a former arable farm where shepherd’s–needle was recorded, the record is not included in this report. 8.1.1.1.3 weasel’s-snout This is another species very characteristic of the uncommon acidic-soil arable species assemblage found in western Britain. In Wales, weasel’s-snout is predominantly a western, coastal species, with records


114

from around Llanelli, much of the Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire coasts and scattered records from northwest Wales. Strangely, it has not been recorded recently from the Lleyn peninsula or Anglesey. There are scattered records from inland Wales but these are often of casual plants in small populations. 8.1.1.1.4 corn marigold This species is characteristic of the acidic-soil arable species assemblage, but is more widespread than other members of this group. This species is more widespread in Wales than the other species used in the analysis, having been recorded from 101 10-km squares since 1987. It is most frequent in Monmouthshire and west of a line from Swansea to Aberystwyth. Outside of this area it has been lost from much of inland Wales and is only now very scattered in north Wales. 8.1.1.1.5 annual knawel This species is very characteristic of the acidic-soil arable species assemblage, but is also found occasionally on heaths and acidic commons. Records of this species are scattered throughout Wales, although once again there is a preference for western and coastal areas. A few good populations exist in Pembrokeshire, but its stronghold lies in southern Cardiganshire where many sites are known from arable fields. It is also found on the Lleyn peninsula and in the Bangor area. 8.1.1.2 Heathland plant communities Plants characteristic of wet lowland heathland in Wales are found in several distinct areas. The most important are the Gower peninsula, the north and south Pembrokeshire heaths, the Lleŷn peninsula coastal heaths, and those of Anglesey. Other smaller fragments exist elsewhere, but it is only in these areas that large heath complexes remain with populations of the full range of priority species. Two of the priority species selected, pillwort and marsh clubmoss occur on inland wet heath in more upland situations. There are important sites for these in Snowdonia (marsh clubmoss) and on the Brecon/Radnor border south of Builth Wells (pillwort). Precise, up-to-date site data for the four priority focal heathland species selected for the study were collected and used to characterise the Key Area. In order to delineate the Heathland Plant Key Area, records of all these species made in or since the year 2000 were mapped together. Aggregations of records, whether of one or more species, were selected and a boundary drawn by hand around them (Figure 66). This boundary encompassed the records plotted, but did not include known areas of heathland in surrounding areas if these lacked records of priority species. It is therefore a map of priority species distribution and abundance, not of heathland distribution. In areas where many records occurred together (such as Gower, Lleŷn and the Brecon/Radnor border), the boundary was relatively easily characterised. In other areas (such as Pembrokeshire and Anglesey), it was more difficult due to the wider distribution of records. These areas are therefore likely to include more heathland (or non-heathland habitat) that does not necessarily feature priority species, but does link areas with priority species together. Single, very isolated records of priority species were also omitted from the Key Area. Using this method, there is a good correlation between the Key Areas selected using this method and the occurrence of lowland wet heath habitat mapped in Wales (Jones et al. 2003). The method used here, however, picks up additional areas that feature priority species, such as south Pembrokeshire (chamomile), inland Anglesey (pillwort) and the Brecon/Radnor border (pillwort). Areas of wet heathland lacking priority species are mapped by Jones et al. (2003) but are not included in the Key Area; they include the north-eastern end of the Lleŷn peninsula, northern Meirionnydd, southern Ceredigion and northern Carmarthenshire.


115

Figure 66 Heathland plant Key Areas. Selected through density and abundance of records of four heathland priority plant species.

8.1.1.2.1 pillwort This small fern is usually found on damp open mud on the edges of pools on heathland. This species is found on many heaths in Wales and is the most widespread of the heathland species in this study. It is most frequent on the Pembrokeshire heaths (11 sites), especially those around St. Davids, and on the hills on the Brecon/Radnor border south of Builth Wells, where it is found in a large number of tiny pools (19 sites) scattered over a large area on the edge of Mynydd Eppynt. It also occurs frequently on Anglesey (5 sites), where it can grow on less acidic marsh habitats, 8.1.1.2.2 three-lobed water-crowfoot This tiny aquatic buttercup-relative is found on damp open mud or shallow water in ruts, ditches and pools on (and around the edge of) heathland. This species is found in Wales in three principle areas. The most extensive populations are the Pembrokeshire heaths, where a reintroduction of grazing has led to its recovery at several sites. Large heath complexes still survive in this area (such as Dowrog Common and Tretio Common) and new sites are being discovered for this species as livestock is moved between heaths. Three small sites are known on the Gower Commons, where a few plants are recorded each year. The species is also found at five sites on Anglesey, some of which (e.g. Salbri Bog) hold very large numbers of plants. These sites are also important as they represent the northern edge of the distribution of this species in Europe. 8.1.1.2.3 marsh clubmoss This small, creeping fern-relative is found on damp open peat around lakes, in flushes and in ruts and peat cuttings. It is found at one site in Pembrokeshire (a huge population - largest in Wales and spread over a large area of Brynberian Moor on the edge of the Priseli Mountains), one site in Meirionnyddshire and three sites in Caernarfonshire. These last sites are more upland than other species in this group; indeed, the Llyn Cwmffynnon population, at 390 meters, is the highest site for this species in Britain, Two


116

of the Caernarfonshire sites are threatened with undergrazing and one of the two populations recently lost through this was located near these sites, the other was in Meirionnyddshire. 8.1.1.2.4 chamomile Chamomile favours damp acidic grassland within heathland areas, being found in shallow depressions, ditches and beside pools. It is found at four sites on the Gower peninsular, where it sometimes grows on village greens grazed by sheep. It is most frequent on the Pembrokeshire heaths however, particularly those near the coast, where 18 sites are known. Further north, it occurs at one site on the Lleŷn peninsula and at one site on Anglesey, which is the furthest north this species occurs in Great Britain. 8.1.1.3 juniper As noted above, the populations of juniper considered in this report are found in upland Snowdonia (Dines and Daniels, 2006). A few scattered populations are located on the Carneddau and Glyderau, but most populations are on and around Snowdon itself, especially on Crib Goch and Y Lliwedd. South of this area many very scattered populations occur around Beddgelert and towards Blaenau Ffestiniog, and south to Dolgellau. The furthest southern populations are on Cadair Idris. The Key Area for this species has been defined using the detailed, up-to-date site data collected for the Wales juniper Inventory (Dines and Daniels, 2006). Records from upland areas of Caernarfonshire and Merionnyddshire made in or since 2000 were mapped at the 1km square level, and these were used to define a very precise Key Area (Figure 67). No buffer zones or connection between these sites was attempted because juniper appears to have a very narrow habitat niche; it is absent from huge areas of upland Snowdonia where conditions appear to be suitable. The Key Area therefore only includes precise sites from which juniper is recorded, plus a small amount of additional area in the 1km square in which the record is located. The dispersal mechanisms and distance of juniper seed is unknown (small mammals as well as birds are likely to be involved) so no buffer zones were placed around the juniper sites to model dispersal. This Key Area highlights the isolated position in which many juniper populations are found.

Figure 67 Upland juniper Key Area, defined by 1-km square occurrence of all upland juniper populations recorded since 2000.


117

8.1.1.4 pink waxcap Pink waxcap is a widespread species in Wales. It is more frequent in mid and south Wales, especially in Breconshire and Radnorshire, northern Monmouthshire and Carmarthenshire. It is also frequent in Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion, but less so in Montgomeryshire, Meirionnyddshire and Caernarfonshire. It appears to be largely absent from north-eastern Wales and Anglesey. This species is relatively well recorded in Wales thanks to its distinctive colour, which makes it readily identifiable, and a series of recording schemes that aimed to improve our understanding of its distribution. Alan Hale (CCW), who collated records from many sources but especially from Gareth Griffith and David Mitchell, provided records. For the purpose of this study, a list of 1km squares was extracted from the data for which there were records made in or after 1987. This list of 156 1km squares was mapped and an arbitrary buffer zone of 3km radius placed around each one to define the Key Area (Figure 68). Although no data exists on the dispersal distance of this species, the lightweight spores it produces are likely to be carried a very long distance in the air. The 3km buffer therefore probably represents an under-estimation of how far this species can spread from each site, but is a compromise between the true dispersal distance and the production of a useful Key Area, which retains a focus on the main areas where pink waxcap has recently been found.

Figure 68 pink waxcap Key Area, defined by occurrences of all fruiting bodies recorded since 1987, surrounded by a 3km radius buffer zone.

8.1.2 Literature review of resource requirements of focal plant species The resource requirements of the plant species included in this study are generally well understood. The majority are UK BAP priority species; because of this, their autecology and management needs have been researched in some detail, and much information exists on their requirements throughout their lifecycles. The least understood group are the non-flowering lower plants, but the species selected here (pink waxcap) is better understood than many. The ecological needs of plants are, in many ways, more straightforward than those of animals. Being sedentary and unable to move from site to site, the requirements of all their lifecycle stages must be provided in situ. If these needs are not met, they will decline at the site in question and may die out completely if appropriate conditions are not re-instated. Two mechanisms allow for an alleviation of this situation. Firstly, their reproductive propagules (i.e. seeds and spores) can usually be dispersed from each site, even while a population is in decline. If sites with suitable conditions exit nearby (within the


118

dispersal range of the species) new sites can be colonised. The successful establishment of new populations usually takes time however, and relies upon both dispersal vectors being present (such as birds or mammals to spread seed) and appropriate habitat conditions to be maintained at the new site. The second mechanism relies on the survival of propagules (seeds or spores) in the soil seed bank of each site. These buried propagules, if long-lived, can produce functioning populations at a site from which a species has been lost should appropriate management conditions be re-instated. The longevity of propagules is not always understood, but can be very long. This is the major mechanism whereby arable plant species can reappear at "old" sites after 50 or more of absence (after, for example, a pasture is ploughed up and cereals grown again). The habitat and management requirements of each plant species in the study was reviewed in order to assess the ability of each prescription to deliver these needs, or to have a negative impact on each species. 8.1.2.1 Arable plant communities The requirements of arable species are very well understood and are outlined in detail in Wilson and King (2003). Arable plants are very opportunistic species of cultivated land. They are highly adapted to an annually repeating pattern of management and this is essential for their survival. A summary of the requirements of the species in this study is given in Table 21. Buried seed is bought to the surface during autumn or spring ploughing or cultivation. This seed can remain dormant for many years (although shepherd’s needle is an exception), but once on the surface exposure to light initiates germination. Depending on the species, germination may take place predominantly in spring or autumn. The season in which soil cultivation occurs (and whether spring or autumn crops are being grown) is therefore very important and will largely determine which species will appear, although many common and widespread species can germinate throughout autumn, winter and spring. Once germinated, seeds develop into seedling plants and grow into maturity within and alongside the crop being grown. Application of herbicides during this time kill many arable plants, and those that survive are often controlled by application of more selective herbicides developed to control herbicide resistant species (e.g. Glean 75DF and Harmony Extra to control shepherd’s-needle). Many arable species are also very sensitive to fertiliser application and cannot tolerate (or perform less well with) high levels of inorganic fertiliser, particularly nitrogen. This factor is often overlooked but can be as important as herbicide application in its effect on arable plant populations. Arable plants are often poor competitors with the other plants around them. Crop density is an important management technique used to suppress arable plant growth, and is obviously of benefit to the farmer looking to maximise crop yields. The development and use of highly competitive crop strains is damaging to arable plants, and is compounded by the ability of the crop to utilise more effectively the inorganic fertiliser being applied to the field. For these reasons, arable plant species are often confined to the edges of fields or their gateways, where the crop is often thinner (due to grazing by herbivorous mammals living in the field boundary or hedgerow) and less fertiliser or herbicide is applied (due to turning of machinery on the field headland), Those arable plants that do survive the short growing season flower and set seed before the crop matures. A large quantity of seed is shed onto the soil surface and becomes buried when the field is next cultivated, ready to germinate the following spring or autumn if and when it is returned to the surface. If soil cultivation does not take place, seeds do not germinate. If any do, they are effectively out competed by perennial plant species. For these reasons, grass leys and pastures quickly become devoid of arable plants (although they may survive as seed in the soil seed bank), as do grassy strips established along the bases of hedgerows. Perennial weed species, such as creeping thistle and common couch can also become established in the crop and become serious competitors for both annual arable plants and the


119

crop. In these situations, the establishment of a pasture or a ley for a few years will help remove these species, with the annual arable species re-appearing once the field is re-ploughed and cultivated.

Table 21 A summary of the ecological requirements of the five arable plant species in the study. Dark cells indicate a strong requirement or ability. Grey cells indicate a weaker requirement or ability. Blank cells indicate no requirement or ability.

8.1.2.2 Heathland plant communities Heathland communities are often an extremely complex mosaic of micro-habitats, with a close association of dry areas and wet hollows, flushes and runnels, the latter of which may or may not dry out in summer, Some areas are heavily shaded by the dwarf shrubs that characterise the habitat, while others remain in the open and become severely droughted in summer. Most heathland plant species that are a priority for conservation are wet-heath species that depend on the correct level of grazing for their survival, which is based on the availability of open areas for germination and freedom from competition. Plants of heathlands are less uniform in their requirements than arable plant species because of the complexity of the habitat in which they grow. All the priority species in this study, however, are plants of wet heath. Available literature on their ecology has been reviewed (Byfield and Stewart 2007; Davies 2001; Preston et al. 2002a; Price 2007a, b and c; Stewart et al. 1994; Wiggington 1994) and a summary of their requirements is given in Table 22. Heathlands generally develop in areas of high rainfall on very nutrient poor substrates. Plant species that are characteristic of these habitats are all able to survive in nutrient poor soils, usually developed over sandstone, shale or clays. These substrates may be either well drained (which leads to the development of dry heath) or poorly drained (leading to wet heath development), Often, any one fragment of heath will have characters of both wet and dry heath as a result in differences in rock type and drainage at the micro-habitat level. Heathlands are very much managed landscapes. Left untouched, they would quickly turn into scrub and ultimately woodland. Dominated as they are by dwarf ericaceous shrubs, management involves grazing by livestock or burning, or occasionally by mechanical cutting. This ensures a succession of dwarf shrubs and also provides open areas, in which many plant species become established. All the priority species in the study require a damp, open substrate; they are poor competitors and need open ground for seedling or spore establishment. Provision of these open areas of substrate (usually bare peat) is ensured either by a high level of ground water in the winter, which suppresses other vegetation, or by "poaching" (trampling) by livestock (literally a churning up of the substrate by the hooves of horses, cattle and sheep). Ideally a combination of these processes operates to provide damp or wet hollows, rutts or pools on heathland that dry out partially or completely in late spring summer, when seeds or spores are shed into the open areas. Ungrazed and unmanaged heathland quickly looses its mosaic of open bare peat and priority species decline rapidly as a result.

Small-flowered Catchfly (SF)

Shepherd’s-needle (SN)

Weasel's-snout (WS)

Corn Marigold (CM)

Annual Knawel (AK)

Life cyle AnnualSoil type Acidic

Lime-richSeed survival Short

LongGermination Spring

AutumnTolerates hebicideTolerates fertilizerTolerates competition


120

Grazing is best applied to heathland from late summer to early winter, when the ground is soft enough for poaching to be effective but not too wet for liquidation of the peat. As well as providing bare peat, grazing also helps to keep grassy swards within the heath in check, which are the conditions preferred by chamomile. Grazing has also been shown to be essential in spreading seeds of three-lobed water-crowfoot to new sites. Several heathland management practices are deleterious to priority species. Burning is an increasingly common form of management, but has a negative effect on these species - not because the fire does damage them but because the ground is not disturbed sufficiently by this practise. It can also release excessive nutrients into the soil to the benefit of more competitive species. A fluctuating water table on heathland is also essential for these species. If a heath is drained water levels will drop permanently and the heath will dry out. Conversely, if drains are blocked to re-establish wetland, this can literally drown populations. Maintaining heathland in good condition requires a delicate balance of management practices, and losses continue from inappropriate burning regimes as well as both overgrazing (which causes poaching and nutrient enrichment) and undergrazing, which allows bracken and rank vegetation to become established and ultimately scrub woodland to develop (Braithwaite et al. 2006).

Table 22 A summary of the ecological requirements of the four heathland plant species in this study. Dark cells indicate a strong requirement or ability. Grey cells indicate a weaker requirement or ability. Blank cells indicate no requirement or ability.

8.1.2.3 juniper Juniper is a very long-lived plant. Trees in southern England typically live for 100-120 years, and the oldest on record is a 255 year-old plant from Teesdale, Co. Durham (Ward, 2007). It is likely that plants from mountainous areas of Wales and Scotland live for longer than this. Despite this longevity, successful recruitment from seed is extremely rare in the wild. Young seedlings are almost invariably grazed by sheep, rodents, rabbits and deer, and the age structure of most populations in the UK is heavily skewed towards mature and senile bushes, with no or very few juvenile plants. Pressure from overgrazing is so severe that it is highly likely populations will become extinct in the next 50-100 years (Ward 2007). Because the threats facing juniper are so clearly linked to management issues (McBride 2005), this species is a priority for conservation action and a good candidate for assessing whether its needs are being met through Tir Gofal.

Chamomile (CH)

Pillwort (PW)

Marsh Clubmoss (MC)

Three-lobed Water Crowfoot (TL)

AnnualPerennialLowlandUplandDisturbed mudOpen peatClosed peatSphagmumGrassSubmergedEmergentExposed (dry)SubmergedEmergentExposed (dry)

Winter hydrology

Summer hydrology

Life cycle

Altitude

Substrate


121

The ecological requirements of juniper are well known and well studied, although most attention has focused on lowland populations in England rather than the upland populations that are included in this report. A very detailed review and summary of juniper ecology, distribution and management is provided by Ward (2007), with additional information relating to the management of upland populations being provided by McBride (2005). Juniper is a very long-lived conifer that reproduces primarily by seed, although large plants of the prostrate J. communis subsp. nana can be formed when branches root and form new clones. Juniper berries (containing the seeds) are dispersed by birds and mammals, and possibly by sheep. They germinate after 2 to 7 years. Seedlings and young plants are very slow growing. They require bare earth or soil in which to establish and must then be protected from grazing (by sheep, rodents or deer) to which they are extremely vulnerable. These conditions are not usually available at each site and it is often found that juniper populations are very even-aged, with all plants originating from around the same time. It is thought that rock-falls, slope erosion or overgrazing might sometimes provide suitable areas for seedling establishment and, provided that these escape grazing for a period, a cohort of individuals can survive in one site. These conditions may be rare and, in very localised the uplands, which is perhaps why populations are so small and isolated today. As with other populations in Britain, those in Snowdonia are dominated by mature plants (83%), with only very few tiny seedlings being found (7%). Improved regeneration has been reported at sites following the reduction in sheep grazing in the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 (Dines and Daniels 2006), illustrating the close link between management and survival of this species in upland areas. Juniper plants in upland Snowdonia do not grow in a wide variety of habitats. Most frequently, they occur in a matrix of rocks and acidic grassland, while smaller numbers occur on sheer cliffs faces and in ericaceous dwarf shrub heath. Perhaps surprisingly, the majority of plants grow on gently sloping, rather than very steep ground. Apart from populations on rock faces and cliffs, it appears that the preferred habitat for juniper in Snowdonia is on gently to moderately sloping rocky grassland (Dines and Daniels 2006). Burning, a method of heathland management common in parts of the uplands, is extremely damaging to juniper. Not only are all plants destroyed by fire, plants are not known to return to sites that have been burned (Ward 2007). Burning is, however, and increasingly common method of heathland management (McBride 2005), although its effect on surviving populations of juniper in Snowdonia, and its past contribution to current distribution, is uncertain. The main requirements of upland juniper are therefore freedom from grazing and burning and availability of suitable habitat. 8.1.2.4 pink waxcap The conservation of lower plant species (mosses, liverworts, lichens, algae and fungi) is often overlooked. They are, however, an essential component of fully functioning habitats, and it is important that their needs are considered and incorporated into all agri-environment schemes. However, the ecology, life cycle and management requirements of many non-flowering lower plants are very poorly known. The notable exception to this is the waxcap group of fungi, a very distinctive suite of species that are found in grassland. Of these, pink waxcap is perhaps the best understood and is one of the main reasons it was chosen for this study. An excellent review and summary of its needs is provided by Holden (2007), from which the following is drawn. Waxcaps are fungi that reproduce from spores. These are shed from the distinctive fruiting bodies that arise each year from an underground network of highly interconnected threads, the mycelium. The mycelium is the bulk of the organism and remains hidden below ground, while the transient fruiting bodies produce and distribute spores and alert us to the presence of the fungus. Pink waxcap is found in grass pasture that has been completely undisturbed for many years (at least 20-30 years but usually more), with no applications of fertiliser, herbicide or moss-killers. A short sward


122

(less than 10cm in height) appears to be essential, although this can be provided either by grazing (at low intensities) or mowing, although this must not be done in the main fruiting season (August-November) when fruiting bodies appear above ground. Allowing a grazed sward to revert to hay-meadow management is detrimental, as the fungus cannot tolerate long grassland (Holden 2007; Woods 2007). Sites include acidic, neutral and base-rich soils (although a preference for acidic-neutral grassland has been shown in Carmarthenshire), and they range in altitude from near sea-level dunes to montane grasslands. Most sites are in meadows, grazed pastures, parks, lawns and churchyards but also include sea cliffs, dunes, heaths and mires. The moss layer of such grasslands is usually well developed and sites tend to be well drained. Correct management of this type of pasture is uncommon in Wales. Most productive pasture is improved in some way, while other areas are being left ungrazed to allow the production of silage or even a reversion to biodiverse hay meadows. All these practices are damaging to this species, and only a few Tir Gofal prescriptions provide the conditions this species requires. 8.1.3 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for focal plant species Eleven plant species have been included in the study and scored in full. In the final analysis, however, the scores of five species (small-flowered catchfly, shepherd’s needle, weasel’s-snout, corn marigold and annual knawel were combined to provide a score for arable plant communities. The scores of four species (chamomile, pillwort, marsh clubmoss and three-lobed water crowfoot) were combined to provide a score for heathland plant communities. In all such cases, each community delivery score was derived from the average delivery for each component species, rounded to the nearest delivery score. Delivery scores for juniper and pink waxcap were assigned for these species in their own right.


123

Table 23 The species-specific potential delivery scores (D) for plant species by a) mandatory prescriptions, b) optional prescriptions, c) capital works and d) common combinations of prescriptions on the same land parcel within Tir Gofal. Scores are provided for individual plant species, but for arable (Ara) and heathland (Hea) plant communities a combined score is presented and this was used in the analysis. The arable (Ara) plant community includes small-flowered catchfly (SF), shepherd’s needle (SN), weasel’s-snout (WS), corn marigold (CM) and annual knawel (AK); the heathland (Hea) plant community includes chamomile (CH), pillwort (PW), marsh clubmoss (MC) and three-lobed water crowfoot (TL). Delivery scores are also presented for juniper (JU) and pink waxcap (WX).

a) Mandatory prescriptions Detail Ara SF SN WS CM AK Hea CH PW MC TL JU WX

Broadleaved woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Light grazing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Orchards S IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Parkland S IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Arable 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland heath 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -2 0 3 0Lowland coastal heath 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 -2 3 1 0U IMP acid grassland all categories 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 0U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2

Grazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3U IMP limestone grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0S IMP grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2

Grazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Marshy grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0Bog Blanket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 1 -2 -2 0 0Reedbeds, fens and swamps 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 -2 -2 0 0Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Light grazing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - scrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Coastal habitat - lowland heath 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 -2 3 1 0Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 0 1 0 0Coastal habitat - U IMP neuitral grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2

Grazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2

Grazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Coastal habitat - marshy grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 1 -2 -2 0 0Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 -2 -2 0 0Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - arable 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Existing ungrazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 -2 3Ungrazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -2 0 0 0 3 1

Sand dunes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


124

b) Optional prescriptions Detail Ara SF SN WS CM AK Hea CH PW MC TL JU WX

Hedgerow restoration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Stone walls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Re-setting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0New 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Conversion from IMP grass 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Winter stubble Conventional crop 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0US crop 0 1 -2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0US root crops - winter grazed 0 1 -2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Rough grass margins -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Uncropped fallow margins 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wildlife cover crop -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Conversion of arable land Light grazing on IMP land -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S IMP hay -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S IMP grazed pasture -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0IMP coastal GM -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other IMP land to hay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Parkland to pasture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1GM lapwing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1GM lapwing/wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Other IMP land to pasture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Buffer zone -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Acid/lime grazed 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Acid/lime hay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2Neutral hay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2

Increase water levels IMP conversion to S IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Marshy grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0IMP GM lapwing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 -2Wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 1 -2 -2 0 0Heath/bog/swamp/reedbed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1 1 1 0 0

Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub On IMP grass -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2Natural regeneration -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2Restore plantations -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2Plant new woodland -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

Establish streamside corridors 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 -2 -2 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 -2Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0

On maritime land 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0On IMP land 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2

Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


125

c) Capital works Detail Ara SF SN WS CM AK Hea CH PW MC TL JU WX

Heather management Burning 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 -2 0Restoration 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 1 0

Pollarding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ditch casting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1 1 1 0 0Bracken control Mechanical 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 -2 1

Chemical 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 1Ground spray 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 1

Rhododendron control 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Other invasive species control 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Scrub clearance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Creation or restoration of ponds -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 1 1 1 1 1 0 -2Bunds and sluices Soil 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 1 -2 -2 0 0

Timber 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 1 -2 -2 0 0Water troughs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Piping for water supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trees and shrubs -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

d) prescriptioncombinations

description Ara Hea JU WX

7 40A U IMP acid grass with established heathland vegetation 0 3 1 0IMP 37A 37C IMP land with woodland creation options -2 0 0 010A 35D S IMP haymeadow with restoration to U IMP haymeadow 0 0 0 -2IMP 24A 25B IMP land with US cereal, rape or linseed followed by winter stubble 1 0 0 010B 35A S IMP pasture with restoration to U IMP pasture 0 0 0 110 35D S IMP grassland with restoration to U IMP grassland 0 0 0 011 36B Marshy grassland with increased water levels 0 1 0 010 35C S IMP grassland with restoration to U IMP grassland (acid/lime hay) 0 0 0 -210B 35B S IMP grassland with restoration to U IMP grassland (acid/lime) 0 0 0 110A 35C S IMP haymeadow with restoration to U IMP haymeadow (acid/lime) 0 0 0 -214A 32B21 Improved coastal GM with conversion to S IMP GM (Lapwing) 0 0 0 114A 32B22 36C1 Improved coastal GM with conversion to S IMP GM (Lapwing/wildfowl) with 0 0 0 0 8.1.4 Discussion of Tir Gofal delivery for focal plant species Although Tir Gofal does have the potential to deliver all or some of the needs of the plant species in this study, there are serious reservations over the level of uptake of beneficial prescriptions, the uptake of damaging prescriptions and over the targeting of beneficial prescriptions within key areas. For heathland plant communities, juniper and waxcap, most beneficial prescriptions are delivered through the mandatory prescriptions; for the arable plant community they are delivered through the optional prescriptions. For widespread species (arable plant communities and waxcaps), it is very unlikely that uptake of Tir Gofal prescriptions at current levels will deliver benefits at the landscape level, and there is little apparent targeting of beneficial prescriptions in key areas. Rarer species (heathland plant communities and juniper) do fare better, with greater uptake of beneficial prescriptions in key areas. This is not surprising, however, as these species are readily associated with distinct habitat types for which specific beneficial prescriptions exist. For arable plant communities and, especially, waxcap, Tir Gofal could be potentially harmful. In some areas, the uptake of beneficial prescriptions is matched or even exceeded by the uptake of damaging prescriptions. This imbalance must be addressed if landscape-level delivery for these species is to be achieved. It is important that these damaging prescriptions are not applied to farmland within key areas; they should also be examined to see if they could be made more beneficial to priority species.


126

This analysis has examined potential Tir Gofal delivery at the agreement, parcel and area levels. For plants, delivery of Tir Gofal prescriptions has to be highly targeted. Unlike birds, mammals and invertebrates, they are unable to move easily to other sites should harmful management be imposed on them. Analysis of prescription uptake at the parcel (field) level, and of the total area of land under each prescription is therefore the most useful in this respect (rather than at the agreement level), but it does not provide a clear picture of how individual populations might be performing under different prescriptions. Careful monitoring of plant populations on Tir Gofal farms is therefore essential to determine whether prescriptions are actually having direct beneficial effects on the ground. If they are not, improved targeting of prescriptions (even within individual fields) may be required to deliver the needs of priority plants. There are fundamental problems with the Tir Gofal prescriptions designed to meet the needs of arable plant communities. Only one (TG29, uncropped fallow margins) delivers all the needs of arable plant species and most (e.g. TG24, unsprayed cereal, rape & linseed crops, and TG25 retention of winter stubbles in cereal, rape and linseed crops) deliver only some of their needs. More worryingly, TG27 (unsprayed roots followed by winter grazing), TG28 (rough grass margins alongside cereal and root crops) and TG30 (establishment of wildlife cover crops) are detrimental to arable species as they are designed to deliver food for birds and invertebrates and essentially encourage the conversion of prime arable plant habitat to grassland. Uptake of these beneficial and detrimental options is roughly equal, so any there is no net conservation benefit to arable plants within the Tir Gofal scheme. While a very large number of farms have taken up at least some arable prescriptions, these are applied to a small number of fields and, since it's only the margins of these fields that are usually managed for arable plants, only a tiny area throughout Wales (3033 ha) is actually delivering for arable species under Tir Gofal. This area must be increased very considerably if we ever hope to deliver conservation for arable plants at the landscape level. Increased uptake should occur within key areas initially, which currently show no additional advantage to arable plants. Heathland is a distinctive habitat type, so the uptake of specific Tir Gofal prescriptions designed to improve management of heathland has been very good. These prescriptions deliver all or most of the needs of heathland plant species, and, while there are detrimental prescriptions that perhaps need to be examined and improved, the parcels of land to which beneficial prescriptions are applied are often very large. Tir Gofal prescriptions are delivering the needs of heathland priority plant species, although their actual effects on populations on the ground need to be assessed in more detail. Key areas make little difference in the delivery of priority heathland plant prescriptions, and improved uptake within key areas is needed. It is difficult to account for the low uptake of beneficial prescriptions in Pembrokeshire and Glamorganshire, with their high density of lowland coastal heath. This unexpected finding needs more research; it may be that most surviving heaths are in formally protected areas (e.g. SSSI) and there is little additional benefit from including them in the Tir Gofal scheme. If not, improved uptake of appropriate options in these areas is essential, Of all priority plant species in this study, juniper is clearly benefiting the most from the Tir Gofal scheme. Although there are very few prescriptions that deliver all or some of the needs of this species (mainly very low levels of grazing on upland heathland), uptake of these options is excellent within the vice-counties and key areas where upland juniper grows. The parcels of land on which these options are applied are usually very large, so delivery at the landscape level is likely. One caveat is that long-term monitoring of populations on the ground is needed before a full assessment of Tir Gofal on juniper can be made. This species is extremely slow growing (bushes often live for more than 100 years) and the establishment of new plants from seedlings is very slow. Without monitoring populations in detail (and looking for seedling growth) over a long period, we cannot be certain that recommended Tir Gofal grazing levels are indeed appropriate. The main problem for waxcaps in the Tir Gofal scheme is that grasslands must remain undisturbed for decades. Any standard agricultural practice, such as applying herbicide or fertiliser, or ploughing and re-


127

seeding, destroys waxcap grasslands. While Tir Gofal prescriptions do discourage these activities, the short-term nature of agreements and uncertainties over the future of agri-environment schemes means that the future of waxcap grasslands cannot be guaranteed, and the creation or expansion of existing habitat is highly unlikely. This is unfortunate, as waxcap grasslands (low input and well grazed) can be entirely productive within agricultural landscapes, especially in upland areas. Another major problem for pink waxcap is the uptake of detrimental prescriptions, which equal or exceed uptake of beneficial ones in some areas, effectively cancelling-out and net conservation gain. These mostly result from the conversion of semi-improved grazing pasture to hay meadows (waxcaps cannot tolerate longer grass). Uptake of beneficial prescriptions within key areas is also essential, as these currently confer no benefit to this priority species.

Title: Review of biodiversity delivery of Welsh agri-environment schemes

128

8.2 Appendix 2: Butterflies 8.2.1 Reason for selection of focal species 8.2.1.1 marsh fritillary The marsh fritillary is a species that depends on extensive farming systems and appropriate management of its unimproved grassland habitat. Factors causing loss or decline include habitat loss due to development and agricultural improvement of marshy grassland (by drainage, ploughing, herbicides, re-seeding); inappropriate management (overgrazing, change to sheep grazing, cessation of grazing, burning heathland); afforestation and particularly fragmentation and isolation of habitats (Asher et al. 2002; Hobson et al. 2002; Lavery 1993; Luckens 1978; Warren 1994). Studies of purple moor-grass pastures in the South Wales Coalfield (Woodman and Fowles, 2002) and North Brecknock and West Radnorshire (Anon, 2003), found that 72% and 90% of grasslands respectively lacked the foodplant devil’s-bit scabious and a vegetation structure necessary to maintain marsh fritillary populations in favourable condition, due to overgrazing, undergrazing or a combination of both. These figures, together with the other reasons for decline, indicate the considerable opportunity for habitat rehabilitation, which can potentially be addressed through agri-environment schemes, by, for example, promoting favourable management on occupied grassland and those within dispersal range of existing populations, through suitable grazing regimes and other necessary management such as scrub cutting. 8.2.1.2 brown hairstreak Reasons for this species’ decline include hedgerow removal and frequent cutting (especially annual cutting); browsing by sheep and cattle; changes in woodland management and loss of suitable woodland edge; over zealous control of blackthorn scrub and/or neglect of blackthorn thickets; ploughing to the field edge; and loss of headlands reducing the amount of sucker growth of young low blackthorn available. The integration of hedgerow management for brown hairstreaks into agri-environment schemes may revive the fortunes of this butterfly, if the measures are adopted and implemented by sufficient landowners. Favourable hedgerow management includes trimming hedgerows once every 2-5 years and cutting no more than a third in any one year; avoiding chemical spraying up to field edges (damages eggs, caterpillars and hedgerow); and leaving an uncultivated margin. 8.2.1.3 grayling Factors causing loss or decline of this species include agricultural intensification which has affected land right up to cliff edge in many places, restricting suitable habitat to the extreme edge of the coast. Lack of management leading to successional changes following the cessation of grazing and invasion of coarse grasses, scrub and trees is also an important factor. Building development on coastal land, heathland and former industrial land have also resulted in habitat loss for this species (Asher et al. 2002). Some of the reasons for the decline can be addressed through agri-environment schemes for example, favourable management and restoration of heathland; management to maintain grassland with a mosaic of short and longer vegetation with bare ground; the prevention of the spread of dominant coarse grasses; and retaining but managing scattered scrub. 8.2.1.4 small pearl-bordered fritillary Reasons for the species’ decline are continuing changes in woodland management (especially loss of open clearings), agricultural improvement and drainage of damp grassland, abandonment of grassland/bracken habitat (cessation of grazing) and abandonment of gorse burning in coastal valleys and other sites where gorse is dominant (Asher et al. 2002; Barnett and Warren 1995). Many of the reasons of decline can be addressed through agri-environment schemes by, for example, promoting appropriate management for open woodland habitats and encouraging appropriate grazing and scrub management regimes on grassland/bracken/gorse mosaics (Barnett and Warren 1995; Butterfly Conservation 2007).


129

8.2.1.5 small heath The ecological requirements of the small heath are insufficiently understood and further research is needed to understand its decline (Fox et al. 2006). However, known factors causing loss or decline include changes in agriculture, which have resulted in the replacement of native grasses by arable crops or improved grassland. Other sites have become unsuitable due to successional changes following cessation of grazing (Asher et al. 2002). The known reasons of decline can be addressed through agri-environment schemes, for example, encouraging management to maintain grassland with a mosaic of short and longer vegetation, which contains a mixture of fine grasses with a variety of nectar sources available throughout the flight period. Preventing the spread of dominant coarse grasses and retaining but controlling scattered scrub is also important. 8.2.1.6 large heath Factors causing the species’ loss or decline include agricultural intensification, for example, the draining of bogs and consequent invasion of birch and pine, overgrazing, succession to woodland, burning and hydrological management which does not provide drier areas as refugia for larva in winter (Asher et al. 2002; Bourn and Warren 1997). Many of these reasons of decline can be addressed through agri-environment schemes for example, restoration of bog and heathland habitat; favourable grazing management; and appropriate hydrological management. 8.2.2 Distribution, populations and key areas 8.2.2.1 marsh fritillary The marsh fritillary is widely distributed in Wales with over 200 populations identified in the past 15 years (Fowles and Smith 2006) and many of the extant populations are on undesignated sites (Joy and Bourn 1998). The main areas of occurrence are mid and south Glamorgan, the Gower Peninsula, south-east Carmarthenshire, Preseli, Llyn Peninsula, Anglesey, North Pembrokeshire and the Rhos pastures of Cardiganshire (Fox et al. 2006; Figure 69). 8.2.2.2 brown hairstreak The brown hairstreak is predominantly recorded in the low-lying pastoral areas of south-west Wales. Carmarthenshire (except the south) appears to be the stronghold with populations also present in eastern Pembrokeshire, southern Ceredigion and a seemingly isolated population in mid-Ceredigion (Fox et al. 2006; Figure 69). 8.2.2.3 grayling In Wales, the grayling is present in many counties, particularly coastal areas although it is also found on other habitats including dry heaths and upland scree slopes (Fox et al. 2006; Figure 69). 8.2.2.4 small pearl-bordered fritillary The small pearl-bordered fritillary is a generally widespread but localised species in Wales, (Fox et al. 2006; Joy and Bourn 1998; Figure 69). It is present on a variety of habitats including woodland glades and clearings, damp grassland and moorland and acid grassland typically with bracken and/or patches of scrub and wet flushes (Asher et al. 2002; Joy and Bourn 1998). 8.2.2.5 small heath The small heath is a generally widespread and fairly common in many counties but there have been widespread local losses and populations have decreased on a variety of habitats at monitored sites in England and Wales (Asher et al. 2002; Fox et al. 2006; Figure 69).


130

This species occurs on grassland where there are fine grasses, especially in dry, well-drained situations where the sward is short and sparse. The largest colonies occur on heathland and coastal dunes. Smaller populations occur in many other locations including roadside verges, waste ground, woodland rides and glades, moorland and parkland (Asher et al. 2002). 8.2.2.6 large heath The large heath occurs on lowland raised bogs, upland blanket bogs and damp, acid moorland where the main larval foodplant, hare’s-tail cotton-grass occurs (Asher et al. 2002). The large heath has a restricted distribution in Wales, being confined to mainly upland habitats in North Wales, particularly the extensive areas of blanket bog in Merionethshire (Fox et al. 2006; Figure 69). The main lowland sites in Wales are Borth Bog on the west coast of Ceredigion, Cors Caron in mid-Ceredigion, which is the most southerly colony of this species known in Wales, and Fenn’s, Whixall and Bettisfield Mosses straddling the English/Welsh border near Whitchurch. All of the lowland sites are National Nature Reserves.


131

Population trend category*

1970 - 1982 1995 - 2004 Time period (1990-20051; 1976-2005 2)Marsh fritillary 78 75 -32% ± 0.5% moderate decline1

Brown hairstreak 43 30 -50% ± 0.7% uncertainGrayling 136 150 -30% ± 0.5% steep decline 2

Small pearl-bordered fritillary 163 173 -36% ± 0.4% uncertain

Small heath 221 249 -17% ± 0.3% stable2

Large heath 22 17 -52% ± 1.0% uncertain

Trend

Wales Recorded distribution (10km squares)

Figure 69 Maps showing the 10km square distribution of: marsh fritillary (top left), brown hairstreak (top right), grayling (centre left), small pearl-bordered (centre right), small heath (bottom left) and large heath (bottom right) as determined by the 2004-2004 survey together with data from two previous survey periods (1995-99 and 1970-82). Source: The State of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland, (Fox et al. 2006).

Data on distribution trends in Wales are given in Table 24. Table 24 Distribution trends for the six focal butterfly species for Wales derived from sub-sampling. The recorded distribution is the count of 10km squares prior to sub-sampling. The population trends for species were meaningful indices could be calculated from UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme transect data are also shown.

*Population trend classification The multiplicative overall slope estimate in TRIM is converted into one of the following categories. The category depends on the overall slope as well as its 95% confidence interval (= slope ± 1.96 times the standard error of the slope). Stable – no significant increase or decline, and it is certain that trends are less than 5% per year. Criterion: confidence interval encloses 1.00 but lower limit >0.95 and upper limit <1.05. Moderate decline – significant decline, but not significantly more than 5% per year. Criterion: 0.95 < upper confidence interval < 1.00. Steep decline – decline significantly more than 5% per year (5% would mean a halving of abundance within 15 years). Criterion: upper limit of confidence interval <0.95.


132

The small pearl-bordered fritillary, grayling and small heath remain widespread and probably under-recorded species in Wales, making definition of key areas impractical. For marsh fritillary, brown hairstreak and large heath, distribution data from the Butterflies from the New Millennium project 1995–2004 was used to define key areas for the species. A 2km boundary was placed around each record and MapInfo’s ‘convex hull’ application used on the ensuing polygons to produce the final ‘smoothed’ area (Figure 70). Note that for the large heath this operation was confined to the records in the North Wales uplands as the more southerly and easterly records are all on National Nature Reserves. Marsh fritillary key areas are mostly already highlighted by the Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) series but there are also major populations on the Coal Measures in the South Wales Valleys from Neath Port Talbot to Caerphilly and around Harlech in Snowdonia. The brown hairstreak key area occupies a region north of the A48 in Carmarthenshire, from Llandovery in the east over to Cardigan and Fishguard and down to Pembroke in Pembrokeshire in the west. The most northerly outpost is south of Tregaron in Ceredigion. The key area for the large heath is in North Wales, principally within Merionethshire where it is present on two extensive areas: the Migneint area, which is the second largest Blanket Bog in Wales, and the Arenig, Arenig Bala and Arenig Fawr area. There are also records to the south at Trawsfynydd.


133

Figure 70 Maps showing the key areas in Wales for the marsh fritillary, brown hairstreak and large heath butterflies.

8.2.3 Literature review of resource requirements for focal butterfly species The life cycle of a butterfly from ova to larva to pupa and to imago (adult butterfly) is highly complex and differs greatly between species. Butterflies resource requirements are not limited to host plants but include a whole range of resources that need to be available, at specific times of the year, in certain forms, within a limited area, in order for a butterfly to be able to successfully complete its life cycle. At certain developmental stages, resources may be critical whereas at other times they may be less critical. A convenient way of categorising such resources for lepidoptera is under each stage of the life cycle; this was the approach taken for the literature review for the six focal species. The resources required by each stage comprise not only the ‘consumables’ (e.g. the hostplant and the adult food) but also the conditions needed for existence and persistence, such as physical sites for various activities (e.g. mate location and pupation sites) and suitable conditions for development and activities, i.e. suitable local climates, microclimates, vegetation structure etc. (Dennis et al. 2006). It should be noted that while this literature review draws together current knowledge of the focal species resource requirements. However, for some butterfly species the resources required remain poorly documented and further research is necessary in order for their requirements to be better understood e.g. the small heath. For each butterfly species, the following sections provide the full results of the literature review and the critical resources extracted, in tabular format; a short textual summary of the critical resource requirements precedes the tables. 8.2.3.1 marsh fritillary The marsh fritillary breeds in open, grassy habitats and, in Wales in particular, in rhos pasture (purple moor-grass and rush pasture). Good breeding areas are usually a patchwork of short and long, tussocky grasses (between 12-25cm tall) where there is a plentiful supply of the main larval foodplant, devil’s-bit scabious together with nectar sources for the adults. A mosaic of shorter and longer vegetation provides both larval basking sites in the late autumn and early spring and ensures sufficient shelter for the larvae through the winter months. Extensive grazing in spring and summer is ideal for the marsh fritillary; a variety of cattle and pony breeds are suitable but sheep are not as they nibble off the devil’s-bit scabious plants and create a tight sward. Suitable stocking rates vary between different sites and between years, but the recommended rate


134

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (MF)Overwintering stage Larvae (4th instar - mid September until February) (Asher et al, 2002).Hibernation site* In a web spun near base of foodplant (within 2-3cm of the ground), usually within dense tussock (Asher et al ,

2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995a; Lavery, 1993; Luckens, 1978).

Generations Univoltine (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995a).Adult Feeding* Plant species flowering during the flight period (mid-May to mid July) e.g. Meadow Buttercup, Tormentil,

Betony, Marsh Thistle and Common Knapweed (Asher et al, 2002; Hardy et al, 2007). Meadow Thistle is a favoured nectar source; relatively few alternative nectar sources are available in damp grasslands etc during the flight period (Lewis & Hurford, 1997).

Adult roosting location No specific information provided in literature.Mate-locating location Mate-locating behaviour predominantly perching on tall herbs, grasses and scattered shrubs (no specific

hostplant-habitat features) (Shreeve, 1992). Mating usually takes places before the wings of the female are dry (Luckens, 1978). Unmated females tend to station themselves on surrounding vegetation including Succisa flowers where they generally remain until noticed by a passing male (Lavery, 1993).

Basking sites No specific information provided in literature.Egg-laying type Large batches (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995a).Egg-laying locality (1)* Tall/mature herbs. The female selects larger, more prominent foodplants (Devil's-bit Scabious) in ungrazed

areas where typical vegetation height is typically, for Welsh populaions, 12-25 cm, (Fowles & Smith, 2006; Hobson et al, 2002). Eggs are laid on the underside of larger, more luxuriant leaves (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995a; Luckens, 1978).

Egg-laying locality (2)* Oviposting females avoid shaded plants (Lavery, 1993). Plants grow more and have wider leaves in exposed situations with less shade (Lavery, 1993; Adams, 1955). In southern Britain, the majority of E.aurinia colonies are located on exposed, south facing slopes, where the combination of higher temperatures and larger (if fewer) foodplants increase the rate of development of the larvae, and thus its chances of survival (Warren, 1990).

Pupa

l Req

uire

men

ts Pupal location Pupate low in grassy vegetation, either deep in grass tussocks or amongst dead leaves (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995a; Lavery, 1993). Stage lasts approximately two weeks; the pupae may be attached to lower leaves or twigs by a silken pad.

Hostplant(s) used* Main foodplant: Devil's-bit Scabious (Succisa pratensis ) (Asher et al, 2002; Hardy et al, 2007; Luckens, 1978).

Hostplant phenology Devil's-bit scabious is a perrenial (Adams, 1995).Hostplant growth form* Devil's-bit scabious is a tall herb (Adams, 1995). Hostplant part used Leaves (Asher et al, 2002; Warren, 1994; Porter, 1981; Barnett & Warren, 1995a).Larval environment* Field layer. Larvae feed in late autumn and early spring, so their survival depends on frequent basking which

may be hindered in shaded conditions where tall vegetation surround the host plants. Sunbathing is essential to heat up the larvae to aid their metabolism (BUTT, 1986; Porter, 1982). Larval nests occur in intermediate length swards where typical vegetation height is between 12-25cm (Fowles & Smith, 2006; Hobson et al, 2002). The overall structure of the vegetation is also important, with most sites characterised by a mosaic of shorter areas and tussocky patches. The caterpillars are often found on the scabious plants growing at the boundary between the tall and short vegetation. Rarely occur in longer dense or taller vegetation. Selection is thought to be a compromise between the thermal requirements of the larvae and the need for relatively large plants (or high denisty of foodplant) to support the numerous larvae from each egg batch (Warren, 1994; Konvicka et al, 2003).

Hostplant patchiness Locally abundant. High cover of hostplant required (Asher et al , 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995a).

Life

Cyc

leA

dult

Req

uire

men

tsEg

g R

equi

rem

ents

Larv

al R

equi

rem

ents

is approximately 0.1 - 0.4 livestock units from April to September. Overgrazing leads to the direct loss of scabious, whilst neglect or abandonment results in scabious plants being shaded out by dense grass litter. Some scrub cutting is necessary on most sites but complete clearance should be avoided as it can provide shelter. Table 25 Review of the resource requirements of the marsh fritillary butterfly

*denotes an ecological requirement considered to be critical on the strength of the information obtained from the literature review.


135

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (MF)Adult flight period Mid-May to mid-July (peak period end of May to mid-June) (Asher et al, 2002; Hobson et al, 2002).Egg period Early June to mid-July (larvae hatch 4-6wks after laying) (Asher et al , 2002; Hobson et al , 2002).Pupal period End April to late-May (Asher et al, 2002; Hobson et al, 2002).Larval period Early July to mid April (Asher et al, 2002; Hobson et al, 2002).Distribution in Wales Rhos pastures of Ceredigion; the damp heathy commons of Pembroke, Carmarthen, Glamorgan and

Anglesey; damp pastures of the south Wales coalfields (Warren, 1994).

General Habitat Breeds in open, grassy habitats, especially, in Wales, damp, neutral/ acidophilus grasslands dominated by tussock forming grasses such as Molinia caerula (acidic soils) and Descampsia cespitosa (on more neutral soils) e.g. Molinia caerulea - Cirsium dissectum fen meadow (mire community M24) and Molinia caerulea - Potentilla erecta mire (M25). Also breeds in heath and mire vegetation with Devils-bit Scabious. Breeding areas are generally very open and unshaded, though many are sheltered either by scattered scrub, topography or by adjacent woodland (Warren, 1994). South and west facing sites are favoured (BUTT,1986; Warren 1993; Hobson et al 2002).

Area of habitat required Generally small areas which hold a number of colonies (Lavery, 1993). Many occur on sites of less than 2ha, but Bulman (2007) found that breeding did not occur in suitable patches less than 0.1ha in size. Next most common site area is 2-10ha, a small proportion occur on sites larger than 10ha (Warren, 1994). The area required depends on habitat quality and connectivity to other suitable patches (Barnett & Warren,1995a). The Marsh Fritillary needs large areas of suitable habitat in the form of networks; Bulman et al 2007 found that for 11 out of 12 networks analysed, minimum areas of habitat needed for 95% persistance of metapopulation after 100 years ranged from 80-142ha.

Colony existence Metapopulation (Asher et al, 2002). Highly sedentary and normally forms closed populations within discrete areas of habitat (Porter, 1981). The butterfly is renowned for the large fluctuations in population size (caused by hymenopteran parasitoids, poor weather and inappropriate management) that make it highly prone to local extinction.

Adult mobility Most adults rarely fly more than 50 -100m from where they emerged but a proportion disperse further (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995a). Gravid females rarely travel far (Lavery, 1993) but after laying their first egg batch, they begin to fly more widely, searching the vegetation for a suitable plant for oviposition. They have been known to colonize sites 10-15km away (dependant on intervening land) (Warren, 1994).

Barriers to movement Porter (1981) found that even hedgerows can represent a considerable barrier to E. aurinia adults, but in Warren (1994), colonies were judged to be distinct if separated by at least 0.5km of unsuitable habitat (e.g. arable fields or dense woodland), or 1km of open but unoccupied semi-natural grassland.

Management Grazing: extensive cattle or pony grazing in spring and summer is ideal for the Marsh Fritillary. The short crop grazing of sheep is generally unsuitable as the nibble off the Devil's-bit Scabious plants and create a tight sward that prevents new scabious plants from germinating (Hobson et al, 2002; Lavery, 1993). Stocking rates may need to vary between different sites and between years. The recommended stocking rate is about 0.1-0.4 livestock units/ha/yr from April to October (Hobson et al, 2002). The aim is to produce an uneven patchwork of short and long vegetation by the end of the grazing period (between 12 and 25cm). Burning: only burn stes where this is essential to recover neglected pasture and burn a maximum of a third of each site/field in a year. Avoid breeding areas. Scrub cutting: some scrub cutting is necessary on most sites. Cut a little between October to February but avoid complete clearance as it provides important shelter (BUTT, 1986). Mowing: generally unsuitable as creates an even sward but can be used to restore negleted damp grassland to a condition suitable for Marsh Fritillaries to breed (Hobson et al, 2002; BUTT, 1986).

Main Threats to species Habitat loss due to development and agricultural improvement ('improvement' of land by drainage, ploughing, herbicides, re-seeding); inappropriate management (overgrazing, change to sheep grazing, cessation of grazing, burning heathland); afforestation; fragmentation and isolation of its habitats. (Asher et al, 2002; Hobson et al , 2002; Luckens, 1978; Lavery, 1993; Warren, 1994).

Oth

er


136

Table 26 Critical resource requirements of the marsh fritillary butterfly

8.2.3.2 brown hairstreak The brown hairstreak lays its eggs on young shoots of blackthorn, a common hedge, woodland edge and scrub plant species. The eggs are laid on the blackthorn in the autumn and remain there throughout the winter, until they hatch in late April/early May. The larva feeds on the blackthorn leaves until it pupates in early July. The dependence of the brown hairstreaks eggs and larvae on young blackthorn growth for much of the year means that most hedge trimming and clearance of encroaching in-field scrub will severely affect them. Annual trimming/clearance is particularly harmful and can kill whole populations. Adopting a three-year rotation for trimming blackthorn hedges and woodland edges (i.e. trimming no more than a third of hedges/scrub in any one year) and a four-year rotation for managing blackthorn scrub encroaching on in-field margins, provides the necessary resources for the eggs and larvae to develop. Mature trees, particularly Ash and oak, on wood edges and within boundaries, act as important mating congregation sites and provide honeydew, an adult nectar source. Adults also use flowering plants along field margins for nectar.

Resource Requirement Time of Year DetailsEgg/larval environment August to mid May Devil's-bit Scabious (Succisa pratensis ) (main foodplant). Large

plants and plentiful supply.Unshaded plants in intermediate length swards where vegetation is, on average, between 12-25 cm tall. Overall vegetation structure desired is a mosaic of shorter areas and tussocky patches.Some shelter (scrub/topography/adjacent woodland).

2 Adult feeding Mid May to mid July

Nectar sources. A number of nectar sources are utilised during the flight period. Meadow Thistle (Cirsium dissectum ) is a favoured nectar source.

3 Over-wintering site Mid September to February

Dense grass tussocks. Web spun near base of foodplant (within 2-3cm of the ground).

1


137

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (BH)Overwintering stage Egg (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).Hibernation site* Young Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa ) (usually approx. 1m from ground) (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998).

Generations Univoltine (Asher et al, 2002).

Adult Feeding Predominantly feed on honeydew secreted by aphids and on secretions produced by Ash trees. Also feed on plant nectar (especially females): late-summer flowers such as Hemp Agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum ), Fleabane (Pulicaria dysenterica ), Bramble (Rubus fruticosus ) and thistles (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998).

Adult roosting location Tree canopy (Asher et al, 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998).Mate-locating location* Adults congregate early in flight period (mid-August) on one or more prominent 'master' trees, usually along a wood

edge (Asher et al, 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998). Large trees usually growing near the lowest point of the countryside containing the colony are utilised (Smith & Clark, 2005). The same trees, usually prominent Ash (but also Oak, Elm and Hawthorn), are used for this purpose from year to year (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998).

Basking sites Tree canopy (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998).

Egg-laying type Usually single, sometimes small batch (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998).Egg-laying locality (1)* Eggs usually laid on bark at the base of spine or bud on young Blackthorn growth proud of the hedge, on suckers at

the hedge bottom, or where one-year-old wood branches from a two-year-old stem. Egg-laying sites mostly less than 1.5m above ground level. Sometimes lay eggs as high as 2-3m and on recently cut hedges but will not lay on bushes that have been heavily browsed (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998; Fartmann & Timmermann, 2006).

Egg-laying locality (2)* Blackthorn in sheltered areas that are exposed to the sun, generally where young growth is suckering out from the scrub edge or hedgerow (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998; Fartmann & Timmermann, 2006). In Wales distribution appears to be limited to below 160m altitude (Smith & Clark, 2005).

Pupa

l Req

uire

men

ts Pupal location Pupate in cracks in the ground, among leaves, or in grass tussocks (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998).

Sym

bion

ts Symbionts (ants) Pupae are highly attractive to ants - found by foraging ants and probably buried in loose earth cells (predation by small mammals is high) (Asher et al, 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).

Hostplant(s) used* Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa ) (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998)Hostplant phenology Perennial.Hostplant growth form Shrub.Hostplant part used Leaves (Asher et al, 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998)Larval environment* Shrub layer. Young, projecting Blackthorn growth in sunny, sheltered areas (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren

1998).

Hostplant patchiness* Large patch (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).

Larv

al R

equi

rem

ents

Life

Cyc

leA

dult

Req

uire

men

tsEg

g R

equi

rem

ents

Table 27 Review of the resource requirements of the brown hairstreak butterfly



138

Resource Requirement Time of Year DetailsEgg/larval environment Early September

to late JuneBlackthorn (Prunus spinosa ). Young growth proud of hedge/scrub or suckers at hedge/scrub base.Sheltered areas, exposed to sun and below 160m altitude.

Adult feeding Late July to early September

Predominantly honeydew secreted by aphids and secretions produced by Ash trees.Plant nectar (especially females): late-summer flowers such as Hemp Agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum ), Fleabane (Pulicaria dysenterica ), Bramble (Rubus fruticosus ) and thistles (Cirsium sp.).

3 Mate-locating location Mid August Assembly tree – usually Ash (Fraxinus excelsior ) but also Oak (Quercus sp), Elm (Ulmus sp.) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna ). Prominent trees usually along wood edge, growing near the lowest point of the countryside containing the colony. Same trees used year to year.

4 Over-wintering site Early September to end April

Young Blackthorn (usually approximately 1m from ground).

1

2

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (BH)Adult flight period Late July until early September/occasionally Oct (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).Egg period Early Sept-end April (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).Pupal period Late June -early August (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).Larval period Early May - late June (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).

Distribution in Wales Low lying pastoral areas of south-west Wales (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998). Carmarthenshire (except the south), eastern Pembrokeshire and southern Ceredigion. There is an isolated population in mid-Ceredigion (Smith & Clark, 2005).

General Habitat Colony usually centred on a wood or copse, but egg laying usually extends over several square miles of the surrounding countryside (often encompassing hundreds of hectares). Therefore need a complex of woodlands and hedgerows which contain abundant Blackthorn and are managed in a suitable way. Low-lying land (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998). In south-west Wales often associated with well-sheltered, deep-cut river valleys (Smith & Clark, 2005).

Area of habitat required Occurs at low densities over wide areas (encompassing hundreds of hectares). Requires substantial uncut sections of hedgerow (several kilometres) and scattered woodland and scrub where there are suitable 'master' trees. The number and type of 'master' trees is poorly known (Asher et al, 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998; Fartmann & Timmermann, 2006).

Colony existence Metapopulation (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).Adult mobility Little information on mobility but females appear to disperse over many kilometres whereas males are more

sedentary, tending to remain around the 'master' trees. Colonies tend to breed in the same regions of the countryside year after year; little evidence of colonisation of peripheral areas (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren 1998).

Barriers to movement No specific information provided in literature.Management Trim hedgerows once every 3-5 years and cut no more than a third in any one year. Rotations over 7 years

involving hedge laying and coppicing are also highly suitable. Advisable to fence early coppice against browsing by stock. Avoid chemical spraying up to field edges (damages eggs, caterpillars and hedgerow) and ideally leave an uncultivated margin. Restore and create hedgerows using Blackthorn, especially if link up existing hedges and woodland edges. Generally east-west hedges with sunny, south-facing side are generally favoured. Maintain all farm woods and broadleaved wood edges and retain trees identified as key mating sites and congregation points. Manage woodland edges and rides in rotation as for hedgerows. Blackthorn hedges of most importance to Brown Hairstreaks: cut in late July/early August when risk of destroying eggs or caterpillars minimised (but caution as late broods of birds may be present). Elsewhere, 3-5 year rotation will minimise effects of autumn/winter cutting - cutting in Feb will be least damaging to other wildlife (Asher et al , 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998; Fartmann & Timme

Main Threats to species Hedgerow removal and frequent cutting (especially annual cutting); browsing by deer and cattle; changes in woodland management and loss of suitable woodland edge; over zealous control of Blackthorn scrub and/or neglect of Blackthorn thickets; ploughing to the field edge and loss of headlands reduces the amount of sucker growth of young low Blackthorn available (Asher et al, 2002; Bourn & Warren, 1998; Fartmann & Timmermann, 2006, Wigglesworth, 2005).

Oth

er

Table 28 Critical resource requirements of the brown hairstreak butterfly.


139

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (GR)Overwintering stage Larvae (Asher et al, 2002).Hibernation site* In tussocks (Asher et al, 2002).Generations Univoltine (Asher et al, 2002).

Adult Feeding* Spend less time nectaring than other butterflies but are attracted to feed from muddy puddles and sap oozing from tree trunks (Asher et al, 2002). Nectar plants include Buddleia, Bramble (Rubus fruticosus ), Heather (Calluna vulgaris ), Wild Thyme (Thymus drucei ), Wild Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum ), Greater Knapweed (Centaurea scabiosa ) (Hardy et al, 2007).

Adult roosting location No specific information provided in literature.Mate-locating location* Males are terratorial and perch in sunshine, usually on patches of bare ground but also on boulders and tree

trunks, to wait for passing females. Females prefer more sheltered and vegetation-covered sites for egg-laying (Asher et al, 2002).

Basking sites Rock/bare earth (Asher et al, 2002).Egg-laying type Single (Asher et al, 2002).Egg-laying locality (1)* Short/tall turf (Asher et al, 2002). Egg-laying locality (2)* Laid singly on medium-sized and isolated plants growing in full sun, usually surrounded by bare ground

(Asher et al, 2002). Eggs are tucked well into the clumps or occasionally are laid on nearby debris. Oviposition occurs from mid or late July and through much of August (BUTT, 1986).

Pupa

l Req

uire

men

ts Pupal location In a silk-lined cavity just below the surface of the ground (Asher et al, 2002).

Hostplant(s) used* Main species used: Sheep's fescue (Festuca ovina ), Red Fescue (F.ruba ), Bristle Bent (Agrostis curtisii ), and Early Hair-grass (Aira praecox ). Coarser grasses such as Tufted Hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa ) and Marram (Ammophila arenaria ) are occasionally used . Larvae feed on leaves at night. (Asher et al, 2002; Hardy et al , 2007).

Hostplant phenology Perrenial.Hostplant growth form Short/tall turf (Asher et al, 2002). Hostplant part used Leaves (Asher et al, 2002).Larval environment Field layer (Asher et al, 2002).Hostplant patchiness n/a - relatively large number of host plants used (Asher et al, 2002).

Life

Cyc

leA

dult

Req

uire

men

tsEg

g R

equi

rem

ents

Larv

al R

equi

rem

ents

8.2.3.3 grayling The grayling occurs on dry, well drained sites and requires lots of open ground (sparse vegetation) with finer grass for egg laying, together with areas of denser vegetation which provide sheltered sites for the larvae to over winter. Undergrazing/cessation of grazing can lead to the invasion of coarse grasses, scrub and trees. The retention of some scrub and trees is important to provide perching sites for the male butterflies and as shelter. Table 29 Review of the resource requirements of the grayling butterfly.



140

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (GR)Adult flight period Early July - early September (peak August) (Asher et al, 2002).

Egg period Early August - late September (Asher et al, 2002).Pupal period Late June - end July (Asher et al , 2002).Larval period Early August - early June (Asher et al , 2002).Distribution in Wales Widespread and common in many counties, particularly in coastal areas (Asher et al, 2002; Joy & Bourn,

1998).General Habitat Many colonies are coastal, on dunes, saltmarsh, undercliffes and clifftops. Inland, colonies are found on dry

heathland, calcareous grassland, old quarries, earthworks, upland scree slopes, restored open-cast, derelict industrial sites e.g. old spoil heaps. In a few areas it occurs in open woodland on stony ground. Essential requirement is dry, well-drained soil with lots of open ground (sparse vegetation) in open positions with one or more food plants (Asher et al , 2002; Joy & Bourn, 1998). Normally associated with sheltered, relatively hot situations (BUTT, 1986).

Area of habitat required Belgium research: needs fairly large sites (>16ha) comprising essential resources (male terratories, female Colony existence Colonies range in size from fewer than 50 individuals to thousands where large tracts of habitat exist (Asher Adult mobility Little known about mobility but adults rarely seen away from breeding areas (BUTT, 1986). Presence on

offshore islands implies that they can spread in favourable years (Dennis et al, 1998). Belgium research: 54% males & 63% females did not move futher than 100m. 10% males and 13% females moved distances longer than 800m. Maximum distance covered between two captures was 1736m for males and 1704 for females (Maes et al , 2006).

Barriers to movement n/a - can spread over sea (Dennis et al , 1998).

Management Aim to maintain sparse vegetation with plenty of bare ground (Asher et al , 2002). Females need to have access to fine grasses when they emerge rather than the fine grasses being choked by growth of other vegetation (BUTT, 1986).

Main Threats to species Building development and construction of golf courses and car parks on sand dunes. Agricultural intensification has affected land right up to cliff edge in many places restricting suitable habitat to extreme edge of coast. Destruction of lowland heathland for housing and rural development; agricultural improvement; ploughing; lack of management e.g. successional changes following cessation of grazing and invasion by coarse grasses, scrub and trees; reclamation of former industrial land (Asher et al, 2002).

Oth

er

Resource Requirement Time of Year DetailsEgg/larval environment Early August to

early JuneGrass species (especially finer grasses). Plenty of bare ground in open positions.Sparse vegetation.Some more sheltered and vegetation-covered areas for egg-laying.

Adult feeding Early July to early September

Muddy puddles and sap oozing from tree trunks (spend less time nectaring than other species).Nectar sources: include Buddleia, Bramble, Heather (Calluna vulgaris ), Wild Thyme (Thymus drucei ), Wild Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum ) and Greater Knapweed (Centaurea scabiosa ).

3 Mate-locating location August Unshaded patches of bare ground, boulders and tree trunks for perching by territorial males.

4 Over-wintering site Late Septmber to spring

Dense tussocks.

1

2

Table 30 Critical resource requirements of the grayling butterfly.


141

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (SP)Overwintering stage Larvae (4th instar) (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).Hibernation site Amongst leaf litter (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).Generations Mainly univoltine but often some of the larger southern colonies (e.g. in South Wales) produce a

partial second brood with adults appearing in August (Barnett & Warren, 1995b; Asher et al , 2002).

Adult Feeding* A variety of nectar sources are used, particulalry Bird's-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus ) and Buttercups (Ranunculus sp. ). Ragged Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi ), early Thistles (Cirsium sp ) and Marsh Thistle (Cirsium palustre ) are also used (Barnett & Warren, 1995; Asher et al , 2002).

Adult roosting location No specific information provided in literature.Mate-locating location Males spend most of their time patrolling , constantly searching for relatively inactive females,

which spend their time basking and feeding (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b; Shreeve, 1992).

Basking sites No specific information provided in literature.

Egg-laying type Single (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).Egg-laying locality (1) Either on plants or dead vegetation near to violets and sometimes on the foodplant itself (Asher et

al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).

Egg-laying locality (2)* Studies suggest a preference for laying in shorter than average vegetation. Locally warm areas within the site where eggs are laid in lush grassy vegetation with abundant violets growing in sunny situations (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b; Butterfly Conservation, 2007; Stewart & Bourn, 2004).

Pupa

l Req

uire

men

ts Pupal location Close to ground, hidden deep within vegetation (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).

Hostplant(s) used* Most widely used foodplants are Common Dog-violet (Viola riviniana ) and Marsh Violet (V.palustris ). It may occasionally feed on other violet species (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).

Hostplant phenology Perrenial.Hostplant growth form Short herb.Hostplant part used Leaves (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b; Butterfly Conservation, 2007). Larval environment* Do not like direct sunlight, after brief, hurried feeding they immediately seek concealment amongst

the leaf-litter and make no attempt to bask in the sun (Barnett & Warren, 1995b). In woodland glades and clearings it requires violets to be growing in open woodland or grassland and avoids any that do not receive at least 50% of direct sunlight during the day. In grassland and moorland habitats, precise requirements not well known. Light cover of Bracken appears beneficial - partial shade that it casts may encourage a good growth of violet (and other woodland herbs), compared to more open grassland. In more heavily grazed habitats, colonies breed predominantly in Bracken areas which tend to be avoided by livestock (Barnett & Warren, 1995b).

Hostplant patchiness Large patch (Barnett & Warren, 1995b).

Life

Cyc

leA

dult

Req

uire

men

tsEg

g R

equi

rem

ents

Larv

al R

equi

rem

ents

8.2.3.4 small pearl-bordered fritillary The small pearl-bordered fritillary breeds in damp grasslands, flushes and moorland where marsh violet is present, or woodland habitats and bracken slopes where violets, the larval foodplant are abundant. It prefers medium height swards with suitable nectar sources available during the adult flight period. Extensive, light cattle grazing is ideal, as some poaching encourages violet regeneration and prevents the development of tall, dense ground vegetation. In woodland or drier habitats, bracken/grassland mosaics encourage an abundant supply of violets by suppressing grass growth. On these habitats, sheep grazing may be beneficial. Table 31 Review of the resource requirements of the small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly



142

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (SP)Adult flight period Late May-late August (partial second brood adults in mid-August) (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett &

Warren, 1995b).

Egg period Mid-May - mid-June (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).Pupal period Mid-April - mid-July (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).Larval period Mid-June - mid-May (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).Distribution in Wales Generally widespread and fairly common which is sometimes localised and regularly recorded in

most counties (Joy & Bourn, 1998).

General Habitat Main habitats: woodland glades and clearings; damp grassland and moorland; acid grassland typically with bracken and/or patches of scrub; open deciduous woodland; wet flushes; base-rich bogs. Other habitats used include dune slacks, coastal cliffs, old coal workings, wet grassland, limestone grassland (Asher et al, 2002; Joy & Bourn, 1998).

Area of habitat required Clocaenog Forest - area occupied ranges from 0.05 and 8.5ha - larger sites tend to support larger colonies (Stewart & Bourn, 1994).

Colony existence Metapopulation in fragmented landscapes (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).

Adult mobility Varies with landscape: appears to be highly sedentary in coppice woodland habitats and in damp grassland/flushes and Bracken but in some regions with more extensive habitats (e.g. conifer forests), may be more mobile with occasional movements between 1 and 3.5km (Stewart & Bourn, 2004).

Barriers to movement Appears to require e.g. links between woodland clearings/rides (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).

Management Aim to maintain damp or heathy vegetatation where violets (often Marsh Violets) are abundant in medium height swards and suitable nectar sources are available. Waterlogged sites can be unsuitable. Damp grassland, flushes & moorland habitats: Grazing : extensive light cattle grazing is ideal, as some poaching encourages violet regeneration. Heavy grazing, especially by sheep, is detrimental. Scrub clearance : undertake when required, especially when acting as a barrier to colonisation. On open, exposed sites planting perimeter shelterbelts will increase habitat suitability. On afforested stream edges clearance of conifers and brash 5-10m back can create ideal habitat. Scrub clearance or burning on 5-10yr rotation; do not eliminate scrub as provides shelter. Woodland glades and clearings: traditional coppice management, glade creation, ride widening can create suitable conditions (Butterfly Conservation, 2007).

Main Threats to species Continuing changes in woodland management (especially loss of open clearings), agricultural improvement and drainage of damp grassland, abandonment of grassland/Bracken habitat, cessation of grazing, abandonment of gorse burning in coastal valleys and other sites where gorse is dominant (Asher et al, 2002; Barnett & Warren, 1995b).

Oth

er

Resource Requirement Time of Year DetailsEgg/larval environment Early spring to late

autumnCommon Dog-violet (Viola riviniana ) and Marsh Violet (Viola palustris ) – most widely used foodplants.Shorter than average, lush, grassy, vegetation in sunny Light cover of Bracken beneficial on drier sites.

Adult Feeding Late May to late August

Nectar sources: variety used, particularly Bird's-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus ) and Buttercups (Ranunculus sp.).Ragged Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi ), early Thistles (Cirsium sp .) and Marsh Thistle (Cirsium palustre ) are also used.

1

2

Table 32 Critical resource requirements of the small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly

8.2.3.5 small heath The small heath occurs in a wide range of grassy habitats, lowland and upland. Fine-leaved grasses are required for egg-laying and small young grasses for feeding larvae. The species is most abundant on grasslands supporting a mosaic of short and long turf in close proximity; this mosaic provides the edge habitat that appears to be favoured and creates suitable basking sites and shelter for egg-laying. Grazing is usually required to maintain the mosaic of sward heights necessary for this species and to prevent coarse grasses from becoming dominant. Males congregate to compete for dominance and to attract females in breeding areas known as lekks, which are usually situated close to landmarks such as trees and scrub in open grassland. The retention of some scrub within suitable habitats is therefore important for this species and should be managed on a rotational basis.


143

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (SH)

Overwintering stage Larvae (at different stages of development)(Asher et al, 2002) .Hibernation site Overwinter at the base of grasses (Asher et al, 2002).Generations Bivoltine or multi-voltine in southern Britain (Asher et al, 2002; BUTT, 1986).

Adult Feeding* Adults feed on a variety of nectar sources; appear to favour nectar from yellow flowers such as dandelions and hawkbits (spring). Also use Buttercup (unspecified), Cinquefoil (unspecified), other yellow composites, Devil's-bit scabious, Bird's-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus ) and Bramble (Asher et al , 2002; King, 2003). They are less frequent visitors to flowers than most butterflies.

Adult roosting location Roosting can take place on very short turf, but longer turf is normally used if available (provides shelter); the butterflies roost either on grass heads, or on the flowers of plantains (Asher et al , 2002).

Mate-locating location* Males congregate to compete for dominance and to attract females in breeding areas, known as leks, which are usually situated close to landmarks such as trees and bushes in open grassland. Females visit these areas only to mate, there being no resources such as nectar or larval foodplants (Asher et al, 2001; Wickman et al , 1994).

Basking sites* Both sexes spend long periods basking either amongst grasses or on bare ground, and are attracted to small whitish objects such as stones, lumps of chalk or bits of dry wood. Second brood Small Heaths often settle on the dead flower-heads of stemless thistle or stemless carline thistle (Asher et al , 2002).

Egg-laying type Single (Asher et al , 2002).

Egg-laying locality (1) On leaves of grasses (Asher et al , 2002); often on dead or dry grasses (King, 2003); or on debris in close proximity (BUTT, 1986).

Egg-laying locality (2)* Amongst short turf in moderately sheltered spots behind a tussock or stand of taller grass (King, 2003).

Pupa

l Req

uire

men

ts Pupal location Suspended from grass stems or leaves (Asher et al , 2002).

Hostplant(s) used* Fine grasses, especially fescues (Festuca spp.), meadow-grasses (Poa spp.), and bents (Agrostis spp.) (Asher et al , 2002).

Hostplant phenology Perennial.Hostplant growth form Small, young plants are required (Asher et al, 2002).Hostplant part used Leaves (Asher et al , 2002).Larval environment* Larvae are usually found low down in the vegetation and require small young plants upon which

they feed mostly at night and they can be found throughout the year (BUTT, 1986).

Hostplant patchiness n/a - relatively large number of host plants used (Asher et al, 2002).

Life

Cyc

leA

dult

Req

uire

men

tsEg

g R

equi

rem

ents

Larv

al R

equi

rem

ents

Table 33 Review of the resource requirements of the small heath butterfly.



144


autumnFine grasses, especially fescues (Festuca spp.), Meadow-grasses (Poa spp.) and bents (Agrostis spp.).Varied range of grass heights in close proximity to provide sheltered locations for egg-laying.Small young plants for feeding larvae.

2 Adult Feeding Late May to mid July; early August to early October

Nectar sources: variety required throughout flight season (late-May to early October). Appears to favour yellow flower such as dandelions (Taraxacum officinale ) and hawkbits (Leontodon sp.) (spring).

3 Basking Late May to mid July; early August to early October

Grasses, bare ground, stones, dry wood. Dead flower-heads of flowering plants e.g. thistles often used by second brood Small Heaths.

4 Mate-locating Location Late-May to early June

Landmark trees and bushes in open grassland.

1

Table 34 Critical resource requirements of the small heath butterfly

8.2.3.6 large heath The large heath occurs in lowland raised bogs, upland blanket bogs and damp, acid moorland where the main larval foodplant, hare’s-tail cotton-grass is present. Mature, dense, tussocks of this foodplant are required to provide the larvae with adequate protection from predators and over-wintering sites just above the water table (to avoid drowning of the larvae). Mixed, species-rich swards of a variable height, with abundant cross-leaved heath, the main adult nectar source, are required rather than areas completely dominated by the foodplant. Overgrazing should be avoided, although absence of grazing can lead to deterioration in habitat quality, particularly on drier mires, with vegetation becoming dominated by single-species such as heather or purple moor-grass or over-sized tussocks of the foodplant develop. Heather cutting and water level management can be used to encourage the spread of cotton-grass and cross-leaved heath but burning of bog habitats is not recommended.


145

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (LH)Overwintering stage Larvae (Melling, 1987; Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al, 2002).Hibernation site* Low down in Eriophorum vaginatum tussocks but if periods of flooding will move up vegetation to

avoid drowning (need to have water table at or just below peat surface).

Generations Univoltine (Melling, 1987; Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al , 2002).

Adult Feeding* Cross-leaved Heath (main adult nectar source) (Melling, 1987; Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al , 2002).

Adult roosting location No specific information provided in literature.Mate-locating location Males spend a lot of time patrolling. No specific host-plant-habitat features (Shreeve, 1992).Basking sites No specific information provided in literature.Egg-laying type Single (Asher et al, 2002 & Bourn & Warren, 1997).Egg-laying locality (1)* Eggs deposited singly on the dead stem of grass found at the base of mature tussocks of E.

vaginatum ( Melling, 1987; Joy, 1991a; Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al , 2002). Females select areas for egg-laying with mixed species rich swards of a variable height rather than an area completely dominated by large tussocks of the foodplant.

Egg-laying locality (2) Partial shade/shade (Melling, 1987; Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al, 2002)..

Pupa

l Req

uire

men

ts Pupal location Suspended either from the foodplant or surrounding vegetation (Melling, 1987; Joy, 1991a; Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al , 2002).

Hostplant(s) used* Main foodplant: E. vaginatum (Melling, 1987; Joy, 1991a), (wet moors, heaths and bogs on acid, peaty soils), although females select areas for egg-laying with mixed species rich swards of a variable height rather than area completely dominated by large tussocks of the foodplant. Larvae also occasionally found on Common Cottongrass (E.angustifolium ) and Jointed Rush (Juncus articulatus ) (Asher et al, 2002 & Bourn & Warren, 1997; Joy, 1991a; Melling, 1987).

Hostplant phenology PerrenialHostplant growth form Tall grass (Melling, 1987; Joy, 1991a; Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al , 2002).Hostplant part used Stem (Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al, 2002).Larval environment* Field layer (Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al, 2002). Sites usually consist of a Sphagnum

base, interspersed with mature tussocks of E. vaginatum , which allow the larvae adequate protection from predators in the dense tussocks, the larvae quickly retreat when disturbed, and an abundant growth of Cross Leaved Heath (Erica tetralix ) which is the main nectar source of the adult (Melling, 1987; Joy, 1991a; Joy, 1991b; Dennis & Eales, 1997). Sites especially suitable where host plant and adult nectar sources overlap or are contiguous (Dennis & Eales, 1997).

Hostplant patchiness Large patch (Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al, 2002).

Life

Cyc

leA

dult

Req

uire

men

tsEg

g R

equi

rem

ents

Larv

al R

equi

rem

ents

Table 35 Review of the resource requirements of the large heath butterfly.



146

Stage State Summary of Information from Literature Review (LH)Adult flight period Late June - early August (peak mid July) (Asher et al, 2002 & Bourn & Warren, 1997).Egg period July (Asher et al, 2002 & Bourn & Warren, 1997).Pupal period Late May - late June (Asher et al, 2002 & Bourn & Warren, 1997).Larval period Late July - early May (Asher et al, 2002 & Bourn & Warren, 1997).Distribution in Wales Mid and north Wales (Conwy, Cardigan, Caernarfon, Meirionnydd) (Asher et al, 2002 & Bourn &

Warren, 1997).

General Habitat Lowland raised bogs (mosses) (usually below 500m), upland blanket bogs and damp, acid moorland; all of which are wet areas where the main larval foodplant, Hare's-tail Cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum) occurs. Sites usually consist of a Sphagnum base, interspersed with mature tussocks of E. vaginatum. Sheltered sites are more likely to be suitable for adults than exposed sites since these will generally have lower wind speeds and higher ambient temperatures, ensuring longer flight times for the adults (Dennis & Eales, 1997).

Area of habitat required Small populations are known to survive on suitable areas as small as 1 hectare for many years (Bourn & Warren, 1997). But large areas and large populations required.

Colony existence In discrete small colonies or as a metapopulation breeding over a network of habitats connected to some extent (Bourn & Warren, 1997; Asher et al , 2002).

Adult mobility Slow-flying, highly sedentary butterfly (Melling, 1987; Joy, 1991b). Marking studies have shown that most adults move less than 100m (Asher et al , 2002). Furthest distance an individual was recorded to have moved between captures was 450m (Turner, 1963).

Barriers to movement Low mobility of the majority of individuals in a population suggest that quite small barriers to movement can separate colonies e.g. 500m of unsuitable habitat (Asher et al, 2002; Dennis & Eales, 1997).

Management Hydrological management : Avoid desiccation of peat as results in habitats becoming overgrown by rank vegetation. Ideally maintain water tables at or just below the peat surface. Block drainage ditches to retain water within peat. Avoid flooding of sites as larvae are susceptible to submersion (Joy & Pullin, 1997). Grazing : avoid overgrazing (>2 animals ha-1), stocking levels should reflect plant productivity; on sites where productivity is low no grazing will be needed. On drier areas extensive and light grazing regimes appear to be the most suitable; helps prevent vegetation becoming dominated by single-species e.g. Heather, Purple Moor-grass or oversized tussocks of foodplant. Forestry : remove conifers from Large Heath sites as they fragment the habitat, restrict movement of adult butterflies between populations, impede colonisation of new habtiat and reduce water supply. Heather cutting: undertake on sites where grazing not viable. Burning not recommended. Scrub control : remove tall scrub to avoid invasion (Bourn & Warren, 1997).

Main Threats to species Drainage of bogs and consequent invasion of birch and pine. Continuing afforestation. Inappropriate land management, particularly burning on wetter areas of moorland. Overgrazing which removes the tussocky structure of the larval foodplant. Continued commercial, large scale peat extraction. Neglect, drying and consequent scrubbing up of sites. Habitat fragmentation. Water management which does not provide some drier areas for the larvae in winter. Open cast coal mining (proposed). Large scale development on unprotected sites (Bourn & Warren, 1997).

Oth

er


autumnHare's-tail Cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum ) (main foodplant).Mature tussocks of Hare's-tail Cotton-grass to provide larvae with adequate protection from predators in dense tussocks. Base of Sphagum and abundant Cross-leaved Heath (Erica tetralix ).

Mixed species rich swards of a variable height rather than area completely dominated by large tussocks of the foodplant.

2 Adult Feeding Late June to early August

Cross-leaved heath (main adult nectar source).

Over-wintering Site Late autumn to early spring

Low down in Hare's-tail Cotton-grass tussocks but if periods of flooding will move up vegetation to avoid drowning (need to have water table at or just below peat surface).

3

1

Table 36 Critical resource requirements of the large heath butterfly


147

8.2.3.7 Summary of resource requirements for butterflies The broad resource requirements for the six butterfly species (i.e. habitat association) are provided in Table 37. Table 37 Broad resource requirements for the six butterfly species. Black cells indicate a strong positive association. Grey cells indicate a weaker positive association. Blank cells indicate no association.

8.2.4 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for butterflies 8.2.4.1 Caveats to scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for butterflies The delivery of each prescription was scored as accurately and as favourably as possible based on the information provided in the Tir Gofal scheme rules and guidance. However, this is a theoretical exercise with no site-specific information and therefore many important unknown factors. It was therefore necessary to attach caveats to a number of the delivery scores in order to make scoring possible and the approach taken transparent. For each butterfly species, the caveats to the scoring of the prescription delivery are detailed adjacent to the score (see section 8.2.4.2); an explanation of the main caveats is provided below. For many species, habitat context determines their presence. The marsh fritillary, for example occurs on lowland coastal heath where it is in mosaic with marshy grassland. Habitat context was an unknown factor in assigning delivery scores; prescription deliveries have therefore been scored favourably and a caveat noting the required habitat context attached. The occurrence of specific vegetation within a habitat is a requirement of many butterfly species. For example, the presence of brown hairstreak in woodlands, scrub and hedgerows is dependant on the presence of blackthorn. In these instances, the prescription has been scored on the basis that the required vegetation is present and the assumption noted in a caveat.

Habitat Mar

sh F

ritill

ary

Bro

wn

Hai

rstre

ak

Gra

ylin

g

Sm

all P

earl-

bord

ered

Fr

itilla

ry

Sm

all H

eath

Larg

e H

eath

WoodlandScrubHedgerowUpland heathLowland coastal heathUnimproved acid grasslandUnimproved neutral grassland (grazed)Unimproved neutral grassland (hay)Unimproved limestone grasslandSemi-improved grassland (grazed)Margins/rough grassMarshy grasslandBog (blanket/raised)Damp/aquatic habitatsMaritine cliff and slopeSand dunes


148

Score Description-2 Likely to be detrimental to the delivery of the resource requirement.0 No consequence, neither positive or negative to the delivery of the resource requirement.1 Weak potential of fully delivering the resource requirement (i.e. sub-optimal resource/habitat or another

resource/habitat required for full delivery). 3 Strong potential of fully delivering the resource requirement.

Butterflies not only need host plants for egg-laying but also the correct conditions needed for existence and persistence. Conditions such as vegetation structure can be evaluated as far as possible from the prescription information but factors such as microclimate etc cannot be taken into account. The derivation of the prescription delivery scores is based on knowledge of these species and their habitats in a Wales context. Prescriptions relating to habitats, in which a species does occur but where this is not a common occurrence e.g. brown hairstreak on coastal scrub, have been scored as ‘1’ unless there are detrimental elements within the prescription. Grazing management is very important for many butterflies; the wrong grazing management for even a short period can eliminate a butterfly species. The marsh fritillary, for example, requires grazing by cattle or ponies but not sheep, and a stocking density of between 0.1-0.4LSU/ha/yr. The majority of the prescriptions do not specify the type of grazing animal and have stocking densities defined as an upper limit only e.g. ‘not exceeding 0.75LSU/ha/yr’. The prescriptions have therefore been scored on the basis that grazing is undertaken by stock suitable for the focal species and that, as long as the required stocking density is within the range detailed in the prescription, the grazing level is suitable. The required stock and stocking density are detailed in the caveat. The majority of restored habitats take time to become suitable for butterfly species and it is likely that this suitability will not be achieved within the 10-year time-span of the agreement. In these instances, the prescription deliveries have been scored as ‘1’ to indicate likely sub-optimal nature of the habitat. Capital works have been scored on the assumption that, for each focal species, they are taking place on habitat suitable for that species. 8.2.4.2 The approach to scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for butterflies A two-step approach was taken to assigning delivery scores for butterflies. Prescriptions were firstly scored according to the potential that they would deliver the individual critical resources, for each species. The scoring system used in this first step is shown in Table 38 and the scores for each species are provided in Table 39 to Table 44. These scores were then used to determine the potential of each prescription to deliver the critical resources required for each species (see Table 45). Table 38 First stage delivery scoring system for butterflies used for assessing whether prescriptions in Tir Gofal have the potential to deliver each critical resource requirement of each focal butterfly species.


149

Table 39 Derivation of scores for the marsh fritillary butterfly.

a) Mandatory Prescriptions

Mandatory prescription DetailEgg/larval

requirementAdult Food

Source

Over-wintering

SiteOverall Score Caveat

Broadleaved woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0

Light grazing 0 0 0 0

Existing grazing 0 0 0 0

Scrub 0 0 0 0

Orchards S IMP 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0

Parkland S IMP 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0

Arable 0 0 0 0

Upland heath 0 0 0 0

Lowland coastal heath 3 3 3 3

e.g. Pembrokeshire Commons, where in mosaic with marshy grassland. Max stocking rate: 0.4LSU/ha/yr and no sheep, otherwise -2.

U IMP acid grassland all categories 0 0 0 0

U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0 0

Grazed 3 3 3 3Max stocking rate: 0.4LSU/ha/yr and no sheep, otherwise -2.

U IMP limestone grassland 0 0 0 0

S IMP grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0 0

Grazed 0 0 0 0

Marshy grassland 3 3 3 3 No sheep, otherwise -2.

Bog Blanket 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0

Reedbeds, fens and swamps 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0

Light grazing 0 0 0 0

Existing grazing 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - scrub 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - lowland heath 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - U IMP neutral grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0

Grazed 3 3 3 3Max stocking rate: 0.4LSU/ha/yr and no sheep, otherwise -2.

Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0

Grazed 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - marshy grass 3 3 3 3 No sheep, otherwise -2.

Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - arable 0 0 0 0

Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 0 0

Existing ungrazed 0 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 3 3 3 3

e.g. Castlemartin Ranges, Pembrokeshire. Max stocking rate: 0.4LSU/ha/yr and no sheep, otherwise -2.

Ungrazed 0 0 0 0

Sand dunes 0 0 0 0



150

b) Optional Prescriptions

Optional prescription DetailEgg/larval


Source

Over-wintering


Hedgerow restoration 0 0 0 0Stone walls 0 0 0 0Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0Earthbanks 0 0 0 0Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0

Re-setting 0 0 0 0New 0 0 0 0

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 0 0 0 0Conversion from IMP grass 0 0 0 0

Winter stubble Conventional crop 0 0 0 0US crop 0 0 0 0

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 0 0 0 0US root crops - winter grazed 0 0 0 0Rough grass margins 0 0 0 0Uncropped fallow margins 0 0 0 0Wildlife cover crop 0 0 0 0

Conversion of arable landLight grazing on IMP land 0 0 0 0S IMP hay 0 0 0 0S IMP grazed pasture 0 0 0 0IMP coastal GM 0 0 0 0

Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 0 0 0 0Other IMP land to hay 0 0 0 0

Parkland to pasture 0 0 0 0GM lapwing 0 0 0 0

GM lapwing/wildfowl 0 0 0 0Other IMP land to pasture 0 0 0 0

Buffer zone 0 0 0 0

Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 0 0

Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 1 1 1 1

Max stocking rate: 0.4LSU/ha/yr and no sheep, otherwise -2. May become suitable post hay crop period. (NB. defunct prescription)

Acid/lime grazed 0 0 0 0Acid/lime hay 0 0 0 0Neutral hay 0 0 0 0

Increase water levelsIMP conversion to S IMP 0 0 0 0Marshy grass 1 1 1 1IMP GM lapwing 0 0 0 0Wildfowl 0 0 0 0Heath/bog/swamp/reedbed 1 1 1 1

Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub On IMP grass 0 0 0 0

Natural regeneration 0 0 0 0

Restore plantations 0 0 0 0

Plant new woodland 0 0 0 0Establish streamside corridors 0 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps 0 0 0 0Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass 0 0 0 0

On maritime land 1 1 1 1Depends on landscape context e.g. Pembrokeshire coast.

On IMP land 0 0 0 0Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass 0 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh 0 0 0 0Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 0 0 0 0



151

c) Capital Works Options

Capital works DetailEgg/larval


Source

Over-wintering


Heather management Burning 0 0 0 0Restoration 0 0 0 0

Pollarding 0 0 0 0Ditch casting 0 0 0 0Bracken control Mechanical 0 0 0 0

Chemical 0 0 0 0Ground spray 0 0 0 0

Rhododendron control 0 0 0 0Other invasive species control 0 0 0 0

Scrub clearance 1 3 1 1

If on suitable habitat. Presume not complete clearance. Some scrub required for shelter.

Creation or restoration of ponds 0 0 0 0Bunds and sluices Soil 1 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat.

Timber 1 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat.

Water troughs 1 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat; will enable grazing.

Piping for water supply 1 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat; will enable grazing.Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0 0Other nestboxes 0 0 0 0Trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0


152

Table 40 Derivation of scores for the brown hairstreak butterfly.


Mandatory prescription DetailEgg-laying Location

Over-wintering Location

Mate-locating Location

Adult Food Source Overall Score Caveat

Broadleaved woodland Stock excluded 1 1 3 3 3If Blackthorn along edges and rides. Assume 'Assembly trees' not removed.

Light grazing 1 1 3 3 3 If ungrazed Blackthorn along edges and rides.

Existing grazing 1 1 3 3 3 If ungrazed Blackthorn along edges and rides.

Scrub 3 3 0 1 1 If Blackthorn present.Orchards S IMP 0 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0 0Parkland S IMP 0 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0 0Arable 0 0 0 0 0

Upland heath 0 0 0 0 0Lowland coastal heath 0 0 0 0 0

U IMP acid grassland all categories 0 0 0 0 0

U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow -2 -2 0 1 -2

If encroaching scrub contains Blackthorn, needs rotational management Nectar source if 10% uncut around field margin.

Grazed -2 -2 0 1 -2


U IMP limestone grassland 0 0 0 0 0

S IMP grassland Haymeadow -2 -2 0 1 -2


Grazed -2 -2 0 1 -2


Marshy grassland 0 0 0 0 0Bog Blanket 0 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0 0Reedbeds, fens and swamps 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 1 1 3 3 3 If Blackthorn along edges and rides.Light grazing 1 1 1 3 3 If ungrazed Blackthorn along edges and rides.Existing grazing 1 1 1 3 3 If ungrazed Blackthorn along edges and rides.

Coastal habitat - scrub 3 3 0 1 1 If Blackthorn present.Coastal habitat - lowland heath 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - U IMP neutral grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0 0

Grazed 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0 0

Grazed 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - marshy grass 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - arable 0 0 0 0 0Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 0 0 0Existing ungrazed 0 0 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 0 0 0 0 0Ungrazed 0 0 0 0 0

Sand dunes 0 0 0 0 0IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


153


Optional prescription DetailEgg-laying Location




Hedgerow restoration 3 3 1 3 3 If Blackthorn laid, coppiced, planted, fenced off etc.Stone walls 0 0 0 0 0Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0Earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0 0

Re-setting 0 0 0 0 0New 0 0 0 0 0

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion from IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0

Winter stubbleConventional crop 0 0 0 0 0US crop 0 0 0 0 0

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 0 0 0 0 0US root crops - winter grazed 0 0 0 0Rough grass margins 1 1 0 1 1

Uncropped fallow margins 1 1 0 1 1Wildlife cover crop 1 1 0 1 1

Conversion of arable landLight grazing on IMP land 0 0 0 0 0S IMP hay 0 0 0 0 0S IMP grazed pasture 0 0 0 0 0IMP coastal GM 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass

Parkland to hay 0 0 0 0 0Other IMP land to hay 0 0 0 0 0Parkland to pasture 0 0 0 0 0GM lapwing 0 0 0 0 0GM lapwing/wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0

Other IMP land to pasture 0 0 0 0 0

Buffer zone 0 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 0 0 0 1 1 If 10% uncut around field margins

Acid/lime grazed 0 0 0 0 0

Acid/lime hay 0 0 0 0 0Neutral hay 0 0 0 1 1 If 10% uncut around field margins

Increase water levels

IMP conversion to S IMP 0 0 0 0 0

Marshy grass 0 0 0 0 0IMP GM lapwing 0 0 0 0 0Wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0

Heath/bog/swamp/reedbed 0 0 0 0 0

Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub On IMP grass 1 1 0 3 1 Allow Blackthorn development around wood edges

Natural regeneration 1 1 0 3 1 Allow Blackthorn development around wood edgesRestore plantations 1 1 0 3 1 Allow Blackthorn development around wood edgesPlant new woodland 1 1 0 3 1 Allow Blackthorn development around wood edges

Establish streamside corridors 0 0 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps 0 0 0 0 0

Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 0 0 0 0 0IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


154


Capital works DetailEgg-laying Location




Heather management Burning 0 0 0 0 0Restoration 0 0 0 0 0

Pollarding 0 0 0 0 0Ditch casting 0 0 0 0 0Bracken control Mechanical 0 0 0 0 0

Chemical 0 0 0 0 0

Ground spray 0 0 0 0 0Rhododendron control 0 0 0 0 0Other invasive species control 0 0 0 0 0Scrub clearance -2 -2 0 -2 -2Creation or restoration of ponds 0 0 0 0 0Bunds and sluices Soil 0 0 0 0 0

Timber 0 0 0 0 0Water troughs 0 0 0 0 0Piping for water supply 0 0 0 0 0Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0Other nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0Trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0 0


155

Table 41 Derivation of scores for the grayling butterfly.


Mandatory prescription DetailAdult Food

Source


Over-wintering

Site Overall Score CaveatBroadleaved woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0

Light grazing 0 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0

Scrub 1 1 0 1When occuring on suitable habitat e.g. sand dunes.

Orchards S IMP 0 0 0 0IMP 0 0 0 0

Parkland S IMP 0 0 0 0IMP 0 0 0 0Arable 0 0 0 0

Upland heath 0 0 0 0Lowland coastal heath 3 3 3 3U IMP acid grassland all categories 3 3 3 3U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0 0

Grazed 3 3 3 3

U IMP limestone grassland 3 3 3 3S IMP grassland Haymeadow 0

Grazed 1 3 1 3Marshy grassland 0 0 0 0Bog Blanket 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0Reedbeds, fens and swamps 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0Light grazing 0 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - scrub 1 1 0 1When occuring on suitable habitat e.g. sand dunes.

Coastal habitat - lowland heath 3 3 3 3Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 3 3 3 3Coastal habitat - U IMP neutral grass Haymeadow 0

Grazed 3 3 3 3Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 0

Grazed 1 3 1 3Coastal habitat - marshy grass 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - arable 0 0 0 0Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 0 0Existing ungrazed 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 3 3 3 3Ungrazed 3 1 3 3

Sand dunes 3 3 3 3IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


156


Optional prescription DetailAdult Food

Source


Over-wintering

Site Overall Score CaveatHedgerow restoration 0 0 0 0Stone walls 0 0 0 0Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0Earthbanks 0 0 0 0Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0


US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 0 0 0 0

Conversion from IMP grass 0 0 0 0


Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 0 0 0 0US root crops - winter grazed 0 0 0 0Rough grass margins 0 0 0 0

Uncropped fallow margins 0 0 0 0Wildlife cover crop 0 0 0 0


Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 0 0 0 0

Other IMP land to hay 0 0 0 0



Buffer zone 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 0 0

Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 0 0Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 1 1 1 1

May become suitable with time. (NB. Defunct prescription).

Acid/lime grazed 1 1 1 1May become suitable with time. (NB. Defunct prescription).

Acid/lime hay -2 0 -2 -2

Presume species present prior to restoration i.e. SI grazed. If SI hay score = 0. NB. Defunct prescription. May become suitable with time.

Neutral hay -2 0 -2 -2

Presume species present prior to restoration i.e. SI grazed. If SI hay score = 0. NB. Defunct prescription. May become suitable with time.





Plant new woodland 0 0 0 0Establish streamside corridors 0 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps 0 0 0 0

Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 1 1 1 1 May become suitable with time.IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


157


Capital works DetailAdult Food

Source


Over-wintering

Site Overall Score CaveatHeather management Burning 1 1 -2 1

Restoration 1 1 -2 1Pollarding 0 0 0 0Ditch casting 0 0 0 0Bracken control Mechanical 1 1 0 1 If on suitable habiat.

Chemical 1 1 0 1 If on suitable habiat.Ground spray 1 1 0 1 If on suitable habiat.

Rhododendron control 0 0 0 0Other invasive species control 0 0 0 0Scrub clearance 1 1 1 1 Assume retention of scattered scrub.Creation or restoration of ponds 0 0 0 0Bunds and sluices Soil 0 0 0 0

Timber 0 0 0 0

Water troughs 1 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat; will enable grazing.

Piping for water supply 1 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat; will enable grazing.Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0 0Other nestboxes 0 0 0 0Trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0


158

Table 42 Derivation of scores for the small pearl-bordered butterfly.

a) Mandatory Scores



Source Overall Score CaveatBroadleaved woodland Stock excluded -2 -2 -2

Light grazing 3 3 3Existing grazing 3 3 3

Scrub 3 3 3Orchards S IMP 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0Parkland S IMP 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0Arable 0 0 0

Upland heath 0 0 0Lowland coastal heath 3 3 3U IMP acid grassland all categories 3 3 3U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0

Grazed 3 3 3

U IMP limestone grassland 3 3 3S IMP grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0

Grazed 0 0 0Marshy grassland 3 3 3Bog Blanket 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0

Reedbeds, fens and swamps 3 3 3 Flushes.

Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0Light grazing 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - scrub 1 1 1Coastal habitat - lowland heath 1 1 1Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 1 1 1Coastal habitat - U IMP neutral grass Haymeadow 0 0 0

Grazed 1 1 1

Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 0 0 0Grazed 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - marshy grass 1 1 1Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 1 1 1 Flushes.

Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 0Coastal habitat - arable 0 0 0Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 0Existing ungrazed 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 3 3 3Ungrazed 3 3 3

Sand dunes 0 0 0IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


159

b) Optional Scores



Source Overall Score CaveatHedgerow restoration 0 0 0Stone walls 0 0 0Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0Earthbanks 0 0 0Slate fences Existing 0 0 0

Re-setting 0 0 0New 0 0 0

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 0 0 0

Conversion from IMP grass 0 0 0

Winter stubble Conventional crop 0 0 0US crop 0 0 0

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 0 0 0

US root crops - winter grazed 0 0 0Rough grass margins 0 0 0

Uncropped fallow margins 0 0 0Wildlife cover crop 0 0 0

Conversion of arable landLight grazing on IMP land 0 0 0S IMP hay 0 0 0

S IMP grazed pasture 0 0 0IMP coastal GM 0 0 0

Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 0 0 0

Other IMP land to hay 0 0 0Parkland to pasture 0 0 0GM lapwing 0 0 0GM lapwing/wildfowl 0 0 0Other IMP land to pasture 0 0 0

Buffer zone 1 1 1Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 0

Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 0Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 1 1 1

Acid/lime grazed 1 1 1Acid/lime hay 0 0 0Neutral hay 0 0 0

Increase water levelsIMP conversion to S IMP 0 0 0Marshy grass 3 3 3IMP GM lapwing 0 0 0Wildfowl 0 0 0Heath/bog/swamp/reedbed 3 3 3

Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub On IMP grass 0 0 0

Natural regeneration 0 0 0Restore plantations 1 1 1Plant new woodland 0 0 0

Establish streamside corridors -2 -2 -2

Assume livestock exclusion will lead to scrubbing up.

Establish new reedbeds/swamps 0 0 0Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass 0 0 0

On maritime land 0 0 0On IMP land 0 0 0

Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh 0 0 0

Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 0 0 0IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


160




Source Overall Score CaveatHeather management Burning 0 0 0

Restoration 0 0 0Pollarding 0 0 0Ditch casting -2 -2 -2Bracken control Mechanical 1 1 1

Chemical -2 1 1Depends whether dense bracken has established and extent of control undertaken.

Ground spray -2 1 1Depends whether dense bracken has established and extent of control undertaken.

Rhododendron control 0 0 0Other invasive species control 0 0 0

Scrub clearance 1 1 1Assume not eliminating scrub - important for shelter.

Creation or restoration of ponds 0 0 0Bunds and sluices Soil 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat.

Timber 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat.

Water troughs 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat; will enable grazing.

Piping for water supply 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat; will enable grazing.Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0Other nestboxes 0 0 0Trees and shrubs 0 0 0


161

Table 43 Derivation of scores for the small heath.


Mandatory prescription Detail

Egg/larval requirements

Adult Food Source


Adult Basking Location

Overall Score

CaveatBroadleaved woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0 0

Light grazing 0 0 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0 0

Scrub 0 0 0 0 0Orchards S IMP 0 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0 0Parkland S IMP 0 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0 0Arable 0 0 0 0 0

Upland heath 3 3 3 3 3Lowland coastal heath 3 3 3 3 3U IMP acid grassland all categories 3 3 3 3 3

U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 1 1 1 1 1

Grazed 3 3 3 3 3U IMP limestone grassland 3 3 3 3 3

S IMP grassland Haymeadow 1 1 1 1 1Grazed 3 3 3 3 3

Marshy grassland 1 1 1 1 1Bog Blanket 0 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0 0Reedbeds, fens and swamps 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0 0

Light grazing 0 0 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - scrub 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - lowland heath 3 3 3 3 3

Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 3 3 3 3 3

Coastal habitat - U IMP neutral grass Haymeadow 1 1 1 1 1

Grazed 3 3 3 3 3Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 1 1 1 1 1

Grazed 3 3 3 3 3Coastal habitat - marshy grass 1 1 1 1 1

Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 0 0 0 0Raised 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - arable 0 0 0 0 0Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 0 0 0

Existing ungrazed 0 0 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 3 3 3 3 3

Ungrazed 1 1 1 1 1Sand dunes 3 3 3 3 3IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


162



requirementsAdult Food

SourceMate-locating

LocationAdult Basking

LocationOverall Score Caveat

Hedgerow restoration 0 0 0 0 0Stone walls 0 0 0 0 0

Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0

Earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0 0

Re-setting 0 0 0 0 0New 0 0 0 0 0

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion from IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0

Winter stubble Conventional crop 0 0 0 0 0

US crop 0 0 0 0 0

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes

0 0 0 0 0

US root crops - winter grazed 0 0 0 0 0

Rough grass margins 0 0 0 0 0

Uncropped fallow margins 0 0 0 0 0

Wildlife cover crop 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion of arable landLight grazing on IMP land 0 0 0 0 0

S IMP hay 0 0 0 0 0S IMP grazed pasture 0 0 0 0 0

IMP coastal GM 0 0 0 0 0Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 0 0 0 0 0

Other IMP land to hay 1 1 1 1 1

Parkland to pasture 1 1 1 1 1

GM lapwing 0 0 0 0 0

GM lapwing/wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0

Other IMP land to pasture 1 1 1 1 1

Buffer zone 0 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 0 0 0

Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0

Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 3 3 3 3 3

(NB. Defunct prescription)

Acid/lime grazed 3 3 3 3 3 (NB. Defunct prescription)Acid/lime hay -2 -2 -2 -2 -2Neutral hay -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

Increase water levelsIMP conversion to S IMP 0 0 0 0 0

Marshy grass 0 0 0 0 0IMP GM lapwing 0 0 0 0 0Wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0Heath/bog/swamp/reedbed 0 0 0 0 0

Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub On IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0

Natural regeneration 0 0 0 0 0

Restore plantations 0 0 0 0 0

Plant new woodland 0 0 0 0 0

Establish streamside corridors 0 0 0 0 0

Establish new reedbeds/swamps 0 0 0 0 0

Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass 1 1 1 1 1

May become suitable with time.

On maritime land 1 1 1 1 1 May become suitable with time.On IMP land 1 1 1 1 1 May become suitable with time.

Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0

Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh 0 0 0 0 0

Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 1 1 1 1 1May become suitable with time.



163



requirementsAdult Food

SourceMate-locating

LocationAdult Basking

LocationOverall Score Caveat

Heather management Burning 1 1 0 1 1Restoration 1 1 0 1 1

Pollarding 0 0 0 0 0Ditch casting 0 0 0 0 0Bracken control Mechanical 1 1 0 1 1

Chemical 1 1 0 1 1Ground spray 1 1 0 1 1

Rhododendron control 0 0 0 0 0Other invasive species control 0 0 0 0 0

Scrub clearance 1 1 1 1 1Presume scattered scrub retained (lekking sites).

Creation or restoration of ponds 0 0 0 0 0

Bunds and sluices Soil 0 0 0 0 0Timber 0 0 0 0 0

Water troughs 1 1 0 1 1If on suitable habitat; will enable grazing.

Piping for water supply 1 1 0 1 1If on suitable habitat; will enable grazing.

Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0Other nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0Trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0 0


164

Table 44 Derivation of scores for the large heath.



requirements

Over-wintering

SiteAdult Food

SourceOverall Score Caveat

Broadleaved woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0Light grazing 0 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0

Scrub 0 0 0 0Orchards S IMP 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0Parkland S IMP 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0Arable 0 0 0 0

Upland heath 3 3 3 3Lowland coastal heath 0 0 0 0U IMP acid grassland all categories 0 0 0 0U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0 0

Grazed 0 0 0 0U IMP limestone grassland 0 0 0 0S IMP grassland Haymeadow 0 0 0 0

Grazed 0 0 0 0Marshy grassland 0 0 0 0Bog Blanket 3 3 3 3

Raised 3 3 3 3Presume water level maintained so site not flooded and larvae not drowned.

Reedbeds, fens and swamps 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0Light grazing 0 0 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - scrub 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - lowland heath 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - U IMP neutral grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0

Grazed 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0Grazed 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - marshy grass 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 0 0 0

Raised 3 3 3 3Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - arable 0 0 0 0Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 0 0

Existing ungrazed 0 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 0 0 0 0Ungrazed 0 0 0 0

Sand dunes 0 0 0 0IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


165



requirements

Over-wintering

SiteAdult Food


Hedgerow restoration 0 0 0 0Stone walls 0 0 0 0Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0Earthbanks 0 0 0 0Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0


US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 0 0 0 0

Conversion from IMP grass 0 0 0 0


Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 0 0 0 0

US root crops - winter grazed 0 0 0 0Rough grass margins 0 0 0 0

Uncropped fallow margins 0 0 0 0Wildlife cover crop 0 0 0 0


Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 0 0 0 0

Other IMP land to hay 0 0 0 0



Buffer zone 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 0 0

Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 0 0Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 0 0 0 0

Acid/lime grazed 0 0 0 0Acid/lime hay 0 0 0 0Neutral hay 0 0 0 0


Presume water level maintained so site not flooded and larvae not drowned.




Plant new woodland 0 0 0 0

Establish streamside corridors 0 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps 0 0 0 0

Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass 1 1 1 1 May become suitable with time.On maritime land 0 0 0 0On IMP land 0 0 0 0

Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass 0 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh 0 0 0 0

Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 0 0 0 0



166



requirements

Over-wintering

SiteAdult Food


Heather management Burning -2 -2 -2 -2Restoration 1 0 1 1 If on suitable habitat.

Pollarding 0 0 0 0Ditch casting 0 0 0 0Bracken control Mechanical 0 0 0 0

Chemical 0 0 0 0Ground spray 0 0 0 0

Rhododendron control 0 0 0 0

Other invasive species control 0 0 0 0

Scrub clearance 1 1 1 1

If on suitable habitat scrub removal beneficial but hydrological management may be required.

Creation or restoration of ponds 0 0 0 0Bunds and sluices Soil 1 1 1 1 If on suitable habtiat.

Timber 1 1 1 1 If on suitable habitat.Water troughs 0 0 0 0Piping for water supply 0 0 0 0Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0 0Other nestboxes 0 0 0 0Trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0


167

Table 45 The species-specific potential delivery scores (D) for butterfly species by a) mandatory prescriptions, b) optional prescriptions, c) capital works and d) common combinations of prescriptions on the same land parcel within Tir Gofal. Butterfly species are marsh fritillary (MF), brown hairstreak (BH), grayling (GR), small pearl-bordered fritillary (SP), small heath (SH), large heath (LH).

a) Mandatory prescription Detail MF BH GR SP SH LH

Broadleaved woodland Stock excluded 0 3 0 -2 0 0Light grazing 0 3 0 3 0 0Existing grazing 0 3 0 3 0 0

Scrub 0 1 1 3 0 0Orchards S IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0Parkland S IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0Arable 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upland heath 0 0 0 0 3 3Lowland coastal heath 3 0 3 3 3 0U IMP acid grassland all categories 0 0 3 3 3 0

U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 0 -2 0 0 1 0

Grazed 3 -2 3 3 3 0

U IMP limestone grassland 0 0 3 3 3 0

S IMP grassland Haymeadow 0 -2 0 0 1 0

Grazed 0 -2 3 0 3 0

Marshy grassland 3 0 0 3 1 0

Bog Blanket 0 0 0 0 0 3

Raised 0 0 0 0 0 3

Reedbeds, fens and swamps 0 0 0 3 0 0

Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 0 3 0 0 0 0

Light grazing 0 3 0 0 0 0

Existing grazing 0 3 0 0 0 0

Coastal habitat - scrub 0 1 1 1 0 0

Coastal habitat - lowland heath 0 0 3 1 3 0Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 0 0 3 1 3 0Coastal habitat - U IMP neutral grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0 1 0

Grazed 3 0 3 1 3 0Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 0 0 0 0 1 0

Grazed 0 0 3 0 3 0Coastal habitat - marshy grass 3 0 0 1 1 0Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 0 0 0 0 0

Raised 0 0 0 0 0 3Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp 0 0 0 1 0 0Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - arable 0 0 0 0 0 0Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 0 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 0 0 0 0Existing ungrazed 0 0 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 3 0 3 3 3 0Ungrazed 0 0 3 3 1 0

Sand dunes 0 0 3 0 3 0



168

b) Optional prescription Detail MF BH GR SP SH LH

Hedgerow restoration 0 3 0 0 0 0

Stone walls 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0 0

Earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0 0

Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Re-setting 0 0 0 0 0 0

New 0 0 0 0 0 0

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion from IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0 0

Winter stubble Conventional crop 0 0 0 0 0 0

US crop 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 0 0 0 0 0 0

US root crops - winter grazed 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rough grass margins 0 1 0 0 0 0

Uncropped fallow margins 0 1 0 0 0 0

Wildlife cover crop 0 1 0 0 0 0

Conversion of arable land Light grazing on IMP land 0 0 0 0 0 0

S IMP hay 0 0 0 0 0 0

S IMP grazed pasture 0 0 0 0 0 0

IMP coastal GM 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other IMP land to hay 0 0 0 0 1 0

Parkland to pasture 0 0 0 0 1 0

GM lapwing 0 0 0 0 0 0

GM lapwing/wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other IMP land to pasture 0 0 0 0 1 0

Buffer zone 0 0 0 1 0 0

Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0 0

Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 1 1 1 1 3 0

Acid/lime grazed 0 0 1 1 3 0

Acid/lime hay 0 0 -2 0 -2 0

Neutral hay 0 1 -2 0 -2 0

Increase water levels IMP conversion to S IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0

Marshy grass 1 0 0 3 0 0

IMP GM lapwing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wildfowl 0 0 0 0 0 0

Heath/bog/swamp/reedbed 1 0 0 3 0 1

Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub On IMP grass 0 1 0 0 0 0

Natural regeneration 0 1 0 0 0 0

Restore plantations 0 1 0 1 0 0

Plant new woodland 0 1 0 0 0 0

Establish streamside corridors 0 0 0 -2 0 0

Establish new reedbeds/swamps 0 0 0 0 0 0

Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass 0 0 1 0 1 1

On maritime land 1 0 1 0 1 0

On IMP land 0 0 1 0 1 0

Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass 0 0 0 0 0 0

Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh 0 0 0 0 0 0

Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 0 0 1 0 1 0



169

d) Prescription Combinations MF BH GR SP SH LH7 40A 0 0 3 0 3 110A 35D 0 1 0 0 1 010B 35A 1 1 1 1 3 010 35D 0 1 0 0 1 011 36B 3 0 0 3 1 010 35C 0 0 -2 0 -2 010B 35B 0 0 1 1 3 010A 35C 0 0 0 0 -2 014A 32B21 0 0 0 0 0 014A 32B22 36C1 36C2 0 0 0 0 0 0IMP 37A 37C 0 1 0 0 0 0IMP 24A 25B 0 0 0 0 0 0IMP 37C 37A 0 1 0 0 0 0

8.2.5 Discussion of Tir Gofal delivery for focal butterfly species 8.2.5.1 Tir Cynnal Tir Cynnal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for the six focal butterfly species. The scheme stipulates a number of general conditions relating to the whole farm and also to a number of main wildlife habitat types. However, as the scheme is not prescription based, it is not possible to determine the potential for these requirements to deliver the critical resources needed by the focal species. The whole farm conditions regarding field boundaries appear to be more favourable than those stipulated in the general requirements for Tir Gofal. Although the minimum amount of uncut hedge specified (25%), is the same as in Tir Gofal, and is less than that recommended for the Brown Hairstreak (which is between one-third and one-half in any one year), rotational cutting is stipulated. The rotation (each hedge left uncut at least one year out of every four) is less than that recommended for the Brown Hairstreak (three-year rotation) but is more favourable than annual cutting. In addition, if hedgerows are included in the habitat area, in order to meet the 5% condition, there are further requirements of wider

c) Capital works Detail MF BH GR SP SH LH

Heather management Burning 0 0 1 0 1 -2

Restoration 0 0 1 0 1 1

Pollarding 0 0 0 0 0 0Ditch casting 0 0 0 -2 0 0

Bracken control Mechanical 0 0 1 1 1 0

Chemical 0 0 1 1 1 0

Ground spray 0 0 1 1 1 0

Rhododendron control 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other invasive species control 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scrub clearance 1 -2 1 1 1 1

Creation or restoration of ponds 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bunds and sluices Soil 1 0 0 1 0 1

Timber 1 0 0 1 0 1

Water troughs 1 0 1 1 1 0

Piping for water supply 1 0 1 1 1 0

Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trees and shrubs 0 0 0 0 0 0


170

hedge width, protection from livestock and a 1m buffer strip outside of the hedge edge. The general requirements and in particular, the consideration of hedgerows as a habitat within this scheme, has the potential to provide a greater benefit for the Brown Hairstreak compared with Tir Gofal. The other conditions relating to wildlife habitat largely mirror the general requirements of the Tir Gofal scheme. As a whole they should benefit the focal butterflies as there is a presumption against under/over-grazing, use of herbicides or pesticides, installation of new drainage, extracting peat/rock etc. However, the lack of specific guidance for the individual habitats in terms of what constitutes under/over-grazing etc., means that it is not possible to determine whether these presumptions actually deliver on the ground. The habitat creation options for farms struggling to reach the 5% habitat condition have the potential to bring some added benefits and have slightly more specific requirements. The reversion of improved land to semi-improved land stands to benefit the Brown Hairstreak and Grayling, if the land is grazed, and the Small Heath. The majority of the remaining conditions relate to field margins and the potential to benefit the focal butterflies is largely restricted to the Brown Hairstreak. 8.2.5.2 Organic Farming Scheme The new scheme, launched in 2007, does not appear to have any of the environmental management prescriptions that were part of the previous scheme and instead defaults to cross compliance. As such, the potential benefits of the scheme, if not undertaken in association with Tir Cynnal and Tir Gofal, will be associated with crop rotations incorporating grass leys, exclusion of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, and reliance of animal and green manures. They may also contain higher densities of uncropped habitats such as hedgerows (Feber et al, 2007). For farms that are also in Tir Cynnal or Tir Gofal, this potential benefit may be enhanced. A recent study (Rundlöf et al., 2008), found that butterflies were significantly affected by organic farming at a local scale but the amount of organic farming in the surrounding landscape had either an additive (species richness) or interactive (abundance) effect. Organic farming was shown to affect butterfly species richness on nearby conventionally managed land. This suggests a landscape effect of organic farming that may indicate a wider benefit of AES for biodiversity conservation. However, for the six focal species it is likely that carefully targeted prescriptions applied to land parcels within agri-environment schemes have a greater potential to provide the favourable habitat conditions required by the species but that there is the potential for these condition to be enhanced by organic farming. 8.2.5.3 Tir Gofal 8.2.5.3.1 marsh fritillary Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for the marsh fritillary. The main habitats, which the species uses are covered by mandatory prescriptions which have the potential to deliver all of the species critical requirements, and the proportion of land covered by these prescriptions is significantly higher within the key areas for the species than outside them. This indicates that the resources that these prescriptions have the potential to provide are being delivered to the right areas and that the key areas provide an ideal focus to monitor the impacts of these prescriptions on this flagship species. The proportion of the Carmarthenshire marshy grassland resource under Tir Gofal agreements indicates that Tir Gofal has a potential to deliver at a landscape scale for the butterfly. Success depends on whether the prescriptions are delivering favourable habitat condition on a site-specific basis. Uptake of optional prescriptions of benefit to the species, by comparison, based on the Carmarthenshire data, appears to be quite poor. 8.2.5.3.2 brown hairstreak The general scheme requirements for hedgerows need changing to deliver good quality habitat at a landscape level. The good uptake of the optional hedgerow restoration prescription will deliver little long-term benefit without such a change. In terms of the grassland prescriptions, whilst it is obviously desirable to prevent extensive encroachment of grassland habitat, allowing blackthorn scrub to encroach


171

a couple of metres from the base of the hedge, and implementing management on a four-year rotation would enable the utilisation of this vital resource. If these issues can be addressed through the revision of the scheme, then the species could benefit from Tir Gofal and the key area would provide an ideal focus for monitoring. 8.2.5.3.3 grayling The main habitats that this species uses are all covered by mandatory prescriptions that have the potential to deliver all of the species’ critical requirements, and there is a good uptake of these prescriptions within agreements at both a national (all-Wales) and vice-county level. Importantly, at the land area scale, this good uptake translates into a good proportion of land, both throughout Wales and regionally (on average 30%) that could deliver all of the critical resources. The grayling is a widespread and probably under-recorded species, with no key area, and therefore the lack of any significant regional variation in prescription uptake will be advantageous to this species, although the slightly higher uptake in north-west Wales is a likely indication that some extensive areas of habitats, including coastal habitats, are covered by Tir Gofal agreements. 8.2.5.3.4 small pearl-bordered fritillary Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for this species The majority of the main habitats used by this butterfly are all covered by mandatory prescriptions that have the potential to deliver all of the species critical requirements, with the exception of the prescription for broadleaved woodland with stock exclusion. Provision for this species through Tir Gofal, however, may vary regionally as some counties have a higher proportion of ungrazed woodland, a detrimental mandatory prescription. These counties are also those in which this species is estimated to have declined by over 60% in recent years (unpublished Butterfly Conservation data). Overall however, there is generally a good uptake of the higher scoring prescriptions within agreements translating into a good proportion of land (on average 30%) that could be under favourable management. 8.2.5.3.5 small heath Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for this species as all of the main habitats with which this species is associated are covered by mandatory prescriptions that have the potential to deliver all of the species critical requirements. A good number of other habitats in which the species has less common occurrence, have the potential to deliver some of the critical resource requirements. Importantly, there is a very good uptake of these prescriptions within agreements at a national (all-Wales) and vice-county level, and importantly, this translates into good proportions of land that have the potential to deliver all or some of the species critical resources. Uptake of prescriptions with the potential to deliver all critical requirements is high in counties with good proportions of the Welsh resource of these habitats, such as upland heathland and unimproved acid grassland. The small heath is a widespread species and, throughout Wales, high uptake of prescriptions with the potential to benefit this species may be advantageous to this species. 8.2.5.3.6 large heath Tir Gofal could contribute to the provision of suitable habitat for this species. The main habitats with which the species is associated are all covered by mandatory prescriptions, which have the potential to deliver all of the species critical requirements. The uptake of these prescriptions is significantly higher within the key area for the species than outside it, indicating that the key areas provide an ideal focus to monitor the impacts of these prescriptions on this flagship species. The uptake of the optional prescription to restore heathland on acid grassland is also higher within the key area. As with the marsh fritillary, the guidance is in place for favourable habitat management for this species, but successful delivery will depend on whether the prescriptions are delivering favourable habitat condition on a site-specific basis.


172

8.3 Appendix 3: Mammals 8.3.1 Distribution, populations and key areas 8.3.1.1 lesser horseshoe bat The lesser horseshoe occurs in mainland Europe as well as in the UK (Schober and Grimmberger 1989). The UK’s population of the lesser horseshoe bat is estimated to be 18,000 individuals, with 9,000 estimated to be in Wales and 9,000 in England (BCT 2007). Its distribution is widespread in Wales and southwest England (and also in the west of Ireland) (Richardson 2000). Approximately 25% of the UK population is found within the area of the Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat Sites SAC (Welsh National Parks et al. 2005). It prefers to forage in sheltered valleys with deciduous woodland and along hedgerows, near to its roost, and roosts in attics, chimneys and boiler rooms, rural houses and out-buildings during the summer (Corbet and Harris 1991), and in cellars, or underground caves and mines in the winter. Sometimes, however, it may use the same structure for summer and winter roosting, depending upon the characteristics of the structure. The lesser horseshoe bat needs a relatively uncomplicated access way to its roost, as it tends to fly directly into the structure and into its roosting position (Schofield et al. 2002). Farmed landscapes are known to provide roosting, foraging and commuting opportunities for this species which is known to be particularly vulnerable to factors leading to landscape fragmentation (see literature review). Both colony count data (kindly provided by CCW), and hibernation survey data have been collected annually by the Bat Conservation Trust’s National Bat Monitoring Programme (NBMP) for this species since 1997 and this data enables population trends to be interpreted. Key areas for this species were derived from the GIS data. Each 10km square holding one or more distribution records was defined as a key area. This approach was taken because the occurrence of this species is clustered in locations with suitable habitat and geology. 8.3.1.2 noctule bat The noctule occurs throughout Europe except for northern Scandinavia (Schober and Grimmberger 1989). The UK’s population of the noctule is restricted to England, Wales and southwest Scotland (Richardson 2000). It is estimated that there are 50,000 individuals, with 45,000 in England and 4,750 in Wales; a small number (around 250) are estimated for Scotland (BCT 2007). Its distribution is widespread across Wales and England (Richardson 2000). It prefers to forage higher above the ground than other UK bat species, out in the open, above woodland or open land. In the UK it is nearly always found using trees for roosting, and rarely found roosting in buildings (Schober and Grimmberger 1989). Relatively few roost sites are formally recorded for the noctule (neither colony counts nor hibernation surveys are carried out under the NBMP for this species) because it is a tree roosting species, and roosts are therefore under-reported. However, this species has been monitored by field (detector-based) survey since 1998 in Wales and England (BCT 2007) and this data enables population trends to be interpreted. Relying predominantly on trees for roosting, the noctule is vulnerable to inappropriate woodland management that destroys old trees that provide cracks, crevices and woodpecker holes (Forestry Commission 2005). It is also vulnerable to reduction in food availability caused by agricultural intensification, loss of pasture, inappropriate riparian habitat management and increased use of pesticides (Welsh National Parks et al. 2005) Key areas for this species were derived from the GIS data. Each 10km square holding one or more distribution records was defined as a key area. 8.3.1.3 common and soprano pipistrelles The common and soprano pipistrelles are widespread and common across almost all of Europe (Schober and Grimmberger 1989) and all of the UK (Richardson 2000). The UK common pipistrelle population is estimated at 2,430,000, with 1,280,000 estimated for Great Britain (BCT 2007). The UK soprano pipistrelle population is estimated at 1,300,000, with 720,000 estimated for Great Britain (BCT, 2007). The common


173

pipistrelle can frequently be found foraging in a variety of agricultural land types, with the soprano pipistrelle’s foraging being influenced by the proximity of water bodies (Vaughan et al. 1997). Both species are commonly found roosting in houses, but will also roost in trees and other structures (Jenkins et al. 1998; Oakeley and Jones 1998). Both colony count data and field survey data have been recorded annually by the NBMP since 1997 and 1998 respectively for the whole of their range across the UK (BCT 2007) and this data enables population trends to be interpreted. Pipistrelle species are frequently reported on farmed landscapes, utilising both the built and non-built components of the landscape. Due to the ubiquity of these species the key area approach was not adopted for these species. 8.3.1.4 serotine bat The serotine occurs throughout Europe, but north only to about 55° latitude which equates with southern England and Wales (Schober and Grimmberger 1989). In the UK its range is generally restricted to the south and southeast of England, although summer roosts appear to be declining and becoming abandoned to the east (Richardson 2000). The UK population is estimated at 15,000 and, despite the few records for southeast Wales, all 15,000 are reported as occurring in England (BCT 2007). In the UK the serotine relies almost totally on built structures, especially houses, for roosting and so is particularly vulnerable to building renovations and timber treatment. It favours traditional pasture, woodland edge and hedgerows with trees for foraging. Both colony count data and field survey data have been recorded annually by the NBMP since 1998 (BCT 2007), and this data enables population trends to be interpreted.


174

Figure 71 Maps showing the 10km square distribution of: Lesser horseshoe (top left), noctule (top right), common and soprano pipistrelle (bottom left), and serotine (bottom right) bats. Source: Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland (Richardson 2000), and unpublished CCW and NBMP data from 2007. Key areas have been defined using the GIS data. Each 10km square holding one or more distribution records was defined as a key area. 8.3.1.5 brown hare The brown hare has been introduced to many parts of the world as a game mammal (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1999) and is thought to have originated from the steppe grasslands of Eurasia (Tapper 1987). It is not absolutely certain when they arrived in Britain; archaeological evidence suggests that brown hares were not present in postglacial Britain (Yalden 1999), and some references indicate the hare to have been introduced in Roman times (Tapper 1987). However more recent opinion suggests that it may have been well before this, perhaps as much as 4000 years ago (Cowan 2004). Hares are currently widespread in the UK, if not always densely populated. They occur generally at lower altitudes throughout most of England, Scotland and Wales (Natural England 2007). In upland areas in Scotland and the Peak district (and in the past, in north Wales) they are replaced by the mountain hare, with which they compete closely (Thulin 2003). One study of brown hare distribution in the Czech Republic (Pikula et al. 2004) found that highest densities occurred at altitudes of less than 200m above sea level and whilst they do occur at altitudes higher than this in Britain, and certainly in Wales (Wilberforce 2006), the highest densities in areas such as East Anglia do conform to this pattern. They are most abundant in arable landscapes and so are most common in east England (Natural England 2007). In fact, hares were found by a national survey to be twice as abundant in arable landscape types as in pastoral (Hutchings and Harris 1996). In pastoral landscapes, available shelter is more limiting to their ecology than forage, even though they have poorer body condition than hares in arable landscapes (Smith et al. 2005b). In a Welsh context, up-to-date information about the distribution of brown hares is patchy. Published literature, based on farm questionnaires, suggests that they are widespread across the country (Vaughan et al. 2003) but in general, records held by Local Record Centres and local mammal recorders do not reflect this (Poole, pers. comm.). Data available through the National Biodiversity Network (www.nbn.org.uk) gateway also show hares to be widespread across Wales but many of the records contained are more than 20 years old. More recent studies have been undertaken using public records


175

submitted on specifically promoted record cards in many areas of Wales, and these schemes are still running in 2008. These include north Wales (run by North Wales Wildlife Trust), in Montgomeryshire, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire (run by The Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales), Carmarthenshire (run by Carmarthenshire County Council) and Gwent (run by Gwent Wildlife Trust). The remaining areas (Radnorshire, Brecknock and Glamorgan) are limited to data held by Local Records Centres and local mammal recorders. Most sources suggest that hares are widespread, but not densely populated, throughout most of Wales. Key areas in Wales for brown hare have not previously been identified. To date they have been considered to be at low density, but widespread. They feature on 12 out of 22 Local Biodiversity Action Plans on BARS (www.ukbap-reporting.org.uk) including Blaenau Gwent, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Flintshire, Gwynedd, Anglesey, Merthyr Tydfil, Pembrokeshire, Powys, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Swansea and Vale of Glamorgan. For the present study, data were gathered from a number of sources in order to generate an up-to-date distribution map that would inform the identification of some definite key areas within Wales. These included records returned from the public surveys led by North Wales Wildlife Trust, The Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales, Gwent Wildlife Trust and Carmarthenshire County Council. Duration and extent of survey effort within these schemes is variable, despite their similar approach, so density of records reflected this as well as actual hare numbers and distribution. Additional records were also gathered from Dan Forman at the University of Swansea and from local records centres SEWBReC (for Glamorgan) and BIS (for Radnor and Brecknock). These data were gathered in a single GIS layer in MapInfo. They cannot be reproduced here due to issues of data ownership, but example data are given from Ceredigion (Figure 72) generated by the survey undertaken by the Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales. These data demonstrate features of distribution that were common across Wales. In general, hares occupied coastal fringes, and large areas on the edges of the uplands, at moderate altitudes- around the Cambrian Mountains and Snowdonia particularly. Lower numbers of records were identified for Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and Gwent, despite some targeted surveys being undertaken. It is not certain whether these low numbers represent reduced reporting of sightings (due to less well publicised surveys or newer survey schemes) or a genuine lower abundance. It is possible that this reflects genuinely low numbers as there is some reference in the literature to a lack of hares in south Wales as a whole (Game Conservancy Trust 2008).


176

Figure 72 Brown hare records 2006-2007 and key areas in Ceredigion19.

Key areas across Wales were identified by drawing polygons surrounding regions that contained the densest (or in some cases, all) records. This is demonstrated in Figure 72 for Ceredigion. Ceredigion has received considerable survey effort over the last two years (Wilberforce 2006) and hares have been shown to be present in most areas of the county, but particularly around the edges of the Cambrian Mountains in the north east. Thus, much of Ceredigion has been considered to be a key area for hares, but there are some parts of the county where hares are clearly less frequent- the more agriculturally intensive pastoral lowlands of south Ceredigion, and the central areas of the Cambrian mountains. This process was repeated across the whole of Wales using all data available, resulting in the map of key areas across Wales (Figure 73).

19 Data courtesy of the Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales.


177

Figure 73 Key areas identified in Wales (shaded) for Brown Hare. Further key areas may be identified with greater survey effort. Map courtesy of Wildlife Trusts Wales.

It should be stressed that because of the variable origins of regional data and the differing levels of survey effort, lack of hare data in this instance cannot be interpreted to mean lack of hares. Consequently, we can be confident that those areas identified as key areas in Figure 73 are important for hares, but other important areas may exist outside these blocks and remain yet unidentified. What we have highlighted is therefore a minimum geographical extent of hare ‘strongholds’. 8.3.1.6 water vole The water vole was once common in Great Britain and often occurred at high densities (Jordan and Netherton 1999; Lawrence and Brown 1967), but the species has undergone a catastrophic population decline in Wales over the past century (Warren 1999), which has been observed throughout Great Britain (Strachan and Jefferies 1993). This makes the water vole the fastest declining mammal species in Great Britain (Driver 1998), having disappeared from approximately 90% of previously occupied sites (Jefferies 2003; Strachan et al. 2000; Strachan and Jefferies 1993). Although a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Target Species with its own Species Action Plan (SAP), which aims to maintain the current distribution and abundance of the species (to halt its decline) and restore its former distribution by the year 2010 (UK Biodiversity Action Plan 1995), these objectives appear over optimistic based on current evidence (Macdonald and Baker 2005). More achievable targets are derived from the revised Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bounded (SMART) targets which have so far prioritised securing water vole distribution and populations at the level of 10km squares (Macdonald and Baker 2005) based on 1996-1998 national water vole survey data (Jefferies 2003). The long-term and accelerated periods of decline, which occurred in the 1950s and 1980s (Strachan et al 2000) have been primarily attributed to the deleterious impacts of American mink predation and modern farming practices (Jefferies ed 2003; Macdonald and Strachan 1999). The first national water vole survey 1989-1990 (Strachan and Jefferies 1993) revealed that the Welsh Water Region for Wales recorded one of the poorest percentage occupations for water voles compared to most other surveyed regions, just 23.1% from 247 historic and baseline survey sites. The second National Water Vole Survey 1996-1998 (Jefferies 2003) showed that the percentage occupancy had fallen to just 5.67% during the intervening period. Recent population estimates places the water voles’ population in Wales to be at 35,000 pre-breeding individuals out of a U.K. population of 875,000 pre-breeding individuals


178

(Jefferies 2003). In total 254 sites (247 Welsh Water Region, 7 Severn Trent Region) were surveyed in Wales as part of the national water vole surveys, the most recent of which (Jefferies 2003) identified water vole populations in the Counties of Gwynedd, Conwy, Anglesey and Ceredigion. No evidence was found on the river catchments of South Wales. However, the absence of positive water vole sites does not necessarily signify an absence of the species in southern half of Wales. This is a reflection of survey effort and direction associated with large-scale systematic surveys, as many suitable habitats were not surveyed (Strachan, C. pers. comm. 2006). Despite water voles being absent from the majority of South Wales counties, significant populations can be found in the Cambrian uplands, Afon Clarach, Cors Caron, the Afon Aeron and Camddwr headwaters (including the Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales Nature Reserves Cors Ian, Llyn Fanod, Rhos Fullbrook and Llyn Eiddwen (Wilberforce pers. comm.), as well as the Levels of Laugharne, Pendine and Llanelli (Jenkins 2005). A number of former locations with suitable habitat have also been identified and include the Gwent levels, Monmouth and Breconshire Canal, Afon Gwendraeth floodplain, Neath and Tennant Canal and in the Vale of Glamorgan (Jenkins 2005). The water vole populations of Cors Caron National Nature Reserve (NNR) have been well documented in recent years (Jefferies 2003; Macdonald and Strachan 1999; Strachan and Bonesi 1998; Strachan and Jefferies 1993) and illustrate the change in fortune of the species from relatively abundant in 1993 (Strachan and Jefferies 1993) to severely depleted by 1997 (Jefferies 2003). Macdonald and Strachan (1999) conducted 79 River Corridor Vole Surveys (RCVS) each 500m in length along the upper Teifi and Camddwr catchments and found only 8 stretches with fresh evidence of water vole, (two after re-surveys in May 1998). Intensive sheep grazing exacerbated by the predation of mink along with catastrophic events such as flooding were considered to be the causes of the decline (Macdonald and Strachan 1999). Results of the first national water vole survey of Wales (Strachan and Jefferies 1993) shows that, although widely distributed, many water vole sites are isolated and therefore susceptible to localised extinction (Figure 74). From the 247 historic and baseline survey sites surveyed for water voles in Wales only 23.1% were found to be positive. Results of the second national water vole survey of Wales (Jefferies 2003) shows that positive sites for water voles are dramatically reduced in number and distribution from the previous survey (1989-1990). The percentage occupancy of surveyed sites had fallen to just 5.6% during the seven-year period between the two National Water Vole Surveys (Figure 74).

Figure 74 National Water Vole Survey Results: 1989 – 1990 (left) and 1996-1998 (right).

Geomorphologically many areas of Wales, with fast flowing wooded valley rivers and streams do not offer optimal habitat conditions for water vole, despite approximately three-quarters of all habitat types in Wales being water dependent to a greater or lesser extent (Brown and Edwards 2006). This is supported by early 20th Century records of water vole being common and often occurring at high density throughout Britain except for South Wales (Barrett-Hamilton and Hilton 1910-21). The changing fortunes in the distribution of the species in Wales may partially be related to the fate of wetland habitats, which have seen a dramatic decline in quantity and quality over the past 40 years, resulting in the loss of associated flora and fauna species (Mills et al. 2006). Anglesey however has a plethora or suitable water


179

vole habitat, through a network of slow flowing streams and ditches supporting some of Wales’ strongest water vole colonies (Pritchard pers. comm.). Due to the current state of water vole populations in Wales, and as a result of often poor and degraded conventional habitat (Strachan 1998; Strachan and Jefferies 1993), conservation efforts are increasingly being focused on sub-optimal upland habitats such as moorland, bogs, mires and rhos (rush) pasture. These habitats have become progressively more important in terms of water vole conservation (Lambin 1999; Strachan and Jefferies 1993), especially in Wales (Bayliss 2005; Jenkins 2005; Strachan and Jefferies 1993; Walsh and Hall 2005) due primarily to the potential of vast areas of available habitat (such as Molinia and Deschampsia grassland) and the lack of historic survey effort. However, the Welsh uplands, although extensive, are often degraded due to drainage, inappropriate grazing pressure and fragmentation (Brown and Edwards 2006) all of which may be impacting on remaining upland water vole colonies. Of the 17 UK national key sites for water voles, three have been designated in Wales, including the Llanelli wetlands area in south Wales, Maltraeth Marsh in Anglesey and Cors Caron in mid Wales. A further two key sites have been proposed by the National Water Vole Steering Group and include the Gwent Levels and Cors Erddreiniog (Anglesey) (MacPherson 2006). As well as national key sites, Wales also supports over 20 regional key areas (Figure 75), identified for their likelihood to play an important role in the species recovery in Wales at the regional level through the appropriate management of habitats, continued conservation efforts and AES (Strachan and Moorhouse 2006). Key areas for water vole in Wales have been developed by Strachan (2006) and based on current metapopulation structure theories and known water vole dispersal distances, identifying local, regional and key areas for water vole by assessing colony size (upland and lowland water vole ecology taken into consideration) and importance to the local and regional context (Strachan and Moorhouse 2006).

Figure 75 Key regional areas identified in Wales (shaded) for water vole20.

20 Data courtesy of Countryside Council for Wales.


180

Regional key areas for water vole are single populations or clusters of colonies (6 or more) that constitute a larger metapopulation and may play a significant role in linking populations across watersheds (Strachan 2006). Efforts are currently underway to update the water vole distribution map for Wales, which will in turn be used to refine and update the key areas for water voles in Wales. Although the project is not due to be competed until 2009, preliminary evidence suggests that many water vole colonies in Wales may be in need of conservation intervention if they are to persist into the future, as many populations in south Wales are no longer present (Parry pers. obs.). 8.3.2 Literature review of resource requirements for focal mammal species 8.3.2.1 Bats This review gives an overview of the resource requirements of the noctule, serotine, pipistrelle (common and soprano) and lesser horseshoe bats, and the direct and indirect impacts of agricultural land management on these species – for example, actions that can impact on the supply of invertebrate prey or change bat commuting routes or roosting opportunities. Agricultural land can be divided into habitats concerned with production (such as arable land and pasture) and non-crop land (such as woodland and watercourses). Among the production habitats, pasture may be categorised further into unimproved, improved, cattle-pasture etc. Non-cropped habitats can be further categorised too, e.g. broad-leaved or coniferous woodland, wetland or field margins. All UK bat species occur within agricultural landscapes (Wickramasinghe et al. (2003) but different species utilise different categories to varying extents. The following reviews how bats (mainly the four focal species but with occasional reference to other bat species) are known to use these different categories of agricultural habitat for two of their main activities – foraging and commuting; structures for their third main activity, roosting, are dealt with separately. Arable land Most studies find that bats seem to avoid arable land. This is reported for overall bat activity (Walsh and Harris 1996a, b), brown long-eared (Swift and Racey 1983), Leisler’s (Robinson and Stebbings 1997; Waters et al. 1999), lesser horseshoe (Bontadina et al. 2002; Motte and Libois 2002), and greater horseshoe bats (Duvergé and Jones 2003). The common pipistrelle, however, feeds evenly across all lowland habitats including arable (Vaughan 1997) and around mature trees overhanging arable land (Davidson-Watts and Jones 2006). Pasture Several species are reported to forage selectively over pasture including serotine (Catto et al. 1996; Robinson and Stebbings 1997), and noctule (Vaughan et al. 1997; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). None of these studies particularly identified preferences for pasture grazed by different animals, but bats foraging over cattle-grazed grassland was often reported. Moller (2001) found numbers of flying insects to be significantly higher where livestock were present. Not only does dung provide food for many invertebrates, the livestock themselves attract and disturb invertebrates making them more available for predators such as bats. In southwest England a colony of greater horseshoe bats was reported as preferring cattle-grazed pasture to sheep or horse-grazed pasture (Duvergé and Jones 2003). Lesser horseshoe studies have reported their avoidance of open habitats such as arable and grass fields, and their preference for sheltered linear features as commuting routes to woodland foraging areas (Bontadina et al. 2002; McAney and Fairley 1988; Schofield et al. 2002). However, the presence of cattle seems to make pasture more attractive for their foraging too. Other insectivorous species have been identified as having similar specific preferences, such as breeding swallows which may be predicted if livestock are present (Ambrosini et al. The distribution and colony size of barn swallows in relation to agricultural land use).


181

Bats can respond rapidly to short-term changes in habitat quality – for example serotines (Catto et al. 1996) and noctules (Haysom, personal observation) have been observed hawking for insects over recently mown grass. Non-crop habitats Non-crop habitats provide important foraging areas for bats. Bats favour woodland and wetland habitats and edges, and linear features such as hedgerows and watercourses for both commuting and foraging (Walsh and Harris 1996a). Bat activity is particularly associated with the presence of water, even more so for some species (such as Daubenton’s or soprano pipistrelles) than others. For example, in southwest England, 70% of all bat passes recorded occurred near rivers or lakes (Vaughan et al. 1997). Water bodies Of our focal bat species, those preferring wetland habitats for foraging include common and soprano pipistrelle (Russ and Montgomery 2002), and noctule (Vaughan et al. 1997; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). One lesser horseshoe study reported foraging activity over water-bodies (McAney and Fairley 1988), with another study highlighting the use of riparian woodland (Schofield et al. 2002). Another study found common pipistrelles preferred smooth water with trees on both banks (Warren et al. 2000) (rippled water possibly impedes echolocation for prey and insect densities were shown to be higher along river stretches with trees). For some bat species pollution of water seems to be an issue, with one study showing overall bat activity (including that of both pipistrelle species) reduced by 11% and prey capture attempts reduced by 28% above polluted water (Vaughan et al. 1996). However, serotine and noctule activity remained unaffected. Woodland Woodland and trees provide important foraging habitats for all bat species. Although there seems to be a general preference for broad-leaved over mixed or coniferous woodland (Russ and Montgomery 2002; Walsh and Harris 1996a), bats (including common and soprano pipistrelle) were recorded in both mixed and coniferous plantation (Russ and Montgomery 2002; Vaughan et al. 1997). Deciduous, mixed and coniferous woodland were all listed as preferred foraging habitats for brown long-eared bats (Entwistle et al. 1996; Swift and Racey 1983). In Belgium and Germany lesser horseshoes were foraging in deciduous, mixed and conifer forests (Motte and Libois 2002) (Holzhaider et al. 2002). Reference to the importance of woodlands is also made under ‘roosting’ below. Linear features High levels of bat activity have been associated with hedgerow habitats (Walsh and Harris 1996b) and other studies report that hedgerows facilitate commuting as well as providing foraging opportunities en route to primary foraging areas. It may be that hedgerows provide shelter from wind, richer supplies of insects, and enable predator avoidance. In mainland Europe linear features less than 1m high were seldom used in contrast to linear features consisting of tall vegetation, and bats tended to fly along the leeward side of linear features, where highest densities of aerial insects also occurred (Limpens and Kapteyn 1991). Small species such as pipistrelles seemed to be more dependent generally on the presence of linear features than large species such as serotines (Verboom and Huitema 1997). Even so, greater horseshoe bats also preferred flying within 5m of field boundaries (on average flying within 2m) and along hedgerows rather than above them (Duvergé and Jones 2003). In the UK serotines were also recorded travelling along tall hedges and tree lines (Robinson and Stebbings 1997). All species have been found to feed in more than one habitat type and this varies among the species. Common pipistrelles will exploit most agricultural habitats for foraging (Vaughan et al. 1997) – and is sometimes termed ‘a generalist’. Habitat types used and distances travelled by individual bats between roost site and a foraging area vary greatly depending upon species, sex, and whether females have young at the roost, ranging from 1.2km for lesser horseshoe (Motte and Libois 2002) to 18km for barbastelle bats (Geoff Billington pers. comm.). Removal of linear features used as commuting routes by bats between roost and foraging areas, or the


182

removal of foraging areas close to maternity roosts can therefore mean sub-optimal foraging conditions, and this should be avoided when planning changes to landscape features in order to safeguard bat populations in the area. Roosting opportunities and issues As there has not been much research on bat roost connections to agricultural landscapes for our focal species, the following also includes bat species occurring in Wales other than the focal species. In the UK noctules use almost exclusively trees for both summer and winter roosting – utilising woodpecker holes and rot holes – only occasionally are they found roosting in bat boxes or buildings (Forestry Commission 2005). A study of the type of tree holes utilised revealed that woodpecker holes are preferred (Boonman 2000). Management of woodland and works to individual trees (e.g. pollarding) therefore has potential to adversely impact on noctules, and AES prescriptions facilitating new woodland and trees (especially broadleaved) have the capacity to provide roosting opportunities for this species. In the UK serotines roost almost exclusively in buildings in the summer and, although rarely found in winter, it is likely that they hibernate in buildings. Traditional barns may be used as summer or winter roosts by pipistrelle species, brown long-eared, Natterer’s and occasionally serotines (Briggs 1995). Old barns with timbered roofs and wooden beams are particularly favoured. Serotines seem to show high roost loyalty, even if optimal foraging habitat has been damaged (Catto et al. 1995), and this can have significant implications for the breeding success of a colony. Such dependence on buildings for roosting also renders serotines vulnerable to building conversion, maintenance and building decay. In a Scottish study, all soprano pipistrelle roosts in buildings were within 550m of a permanent water body (Jenkins et al. 1998), and most roosts had some linear vegetation link to a woodland area, or were immediately adjacent to woodland. Research into soprano pipistrelle maternity roosts in an agricultural area in Wiltshire and Somerset produced similar findings with water and continuous hedgerows with emergent trees generally within 2km of roost sites (Oakeley and Jones 1998). Another study of soprano pipistrelles in the Avon valley near Salisbury in Wiltshire produced similar findings (Davidson-Watts 2006). Common pipistrelles seem less reliant on the proximity of wetland habitat to their roosts. Duvergé and Jones (2003) reported that 32% of greater horseshoe roost sites in their study were related to farm buildings, with a further 43% located on or near farmland. Lesser horseshoe bats also favour buildings for roosting, particularly in the summer (Schofield et al. 2002), and such heavy reliance renders this species vulnerable to building conversion, maintenance and building decay. Underground sites such as caves and mines may be used as summer roosts by horseshoe bats, and often as hibernation sites for many other species. Entrances to these structures may also be important for autumnal ‘swarming’ which is associated with mating (Altringham 2003). Night roosts (sometimes called ‘night perches’) in buildings and trees are particularly known to be used by greater horseshoes (Duvergé and Jones 2003), lesser horseshoes (Schofield 1996), serotines (Catto et al. 1996) and brown long-eared bats. They may be particularly important for pregnant females and juveniles. A summary of the roosting, foraging and commuting requirements of the key bat species derived from the literature review is given in Table 46.


183

Table 46 Resource requirements of noctule, serotine, pipistrelle spp. and lesser horseshoe bats for roosting/foraging/commuting activities. Black cells indicate strong positive association. Grey cells indicate weaker positive association. Blank cells indicate no association.

Impacts of some agricultural operations on bat prey All 17 breeding species of bat in the UK eat only insects, and a comprehensive review of the diets of all species has been produced (Barlow 1997; Vaughan 1997). Bats utilise different insect prey at different times of the year, depending upon their own biological needs and insect availability/lifecycles. Commuting routes and foraging areas may therefore change throughout the year as prey species change. Although a mosaic of habitats should be the aim to maximise insect availability throughout the year, it has been noted that the adult stages of insect prey tend to rely on damp and shaded habitats such as woodlands, wetlands/waterbodies and grassland or pasture where organic matter and/or livestock (and hence dung) are plentiful. Generally though, Diptera, Lepidoptera and Coleoptera form are important components of bats’ diets (Vaughan 1997). Modern agricultural practices have been blamed for the perceived declines in bat populations during the 20th Century, because of the resulting habitat loss/fragmentation, and reductions in invertebrate abundance, i.e. loss of foraging areas and prey, as well as loss/destruction of roosts. Moths have declined widely (Harrington et al. 2003), as have dung beetles. It has been postulated that exposure to pesticides (either directly or indirectly) has impacted on bat populations and on prey invertebrate populations, and the extent that the use of avermectins in livestock husbandry further contributes to the reduction in prey items is still being debated; however, given that some bat species (e.g. serotines and greater horseshoe bats) particularly target beetles associated with cattle dung as well as cockchafers, avoiding the use of avermectins at foraging areas would increase the abundance of prey items. One fairly recent study found that overall bat activity was 61% higher, and bat foraging activity 84% higher, on organic farms compared with conventional farms (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). Not only is this because of the absence of pesticides, it was also found that organic farms had better habitat structures – and both contribute to improved insect abundance and a wider range of bat prey species. The impact of pesticides on insect populations has been well researched, including the impacts of their use at different times in the year, in different circumstances, and in the frequency of their use (Vickery et al. 2001). Management of grassland in terms of cutting frequency/timing and grazing density/timing can have significant impacts on insect abundance. Tall and undisturbed grass tends to support higher numbers and diversity of insects than short grass (Curry 1987), and a higher abundance of flies tends to occur in heavily grazed fields. Cattle pasture especially has been identified as important foraging habitats for serotines, horseshoes and noctules (see under pasture above). Several silage cuts per year have been found to adversely impact on beetles to a greater extent than one late hay cut (Fuller 2003).


184

Land management in terms of drainage also has great potential to impact on insect prey species; alteration of waterways and increased intensity of management to ditches has in many cases removed vegetation and sediments on which many invertebrate species rely (Stubbs 2001) – as well as potentially removing the opportunity for standing water that provides habitat for many aquatic insects on which bats prey. Soil cultivation can cause reduction in soil dwelling Diptera and beetle larvae – especially those species with long larval stages; to maintain cockchafer and dung beetle larvae for instance, which are important for several bat species, careful consideration should be given to ensuring that cultivation regimes do not compromise populations of these species. Ploughing also adversely impacts on several moth species (Fox 2001). 8.3.2.2 brown hare Resource requirements of the brown hare have been relatively well studied and in some cases, reviewed. However, as a wide ranging species that uses a great many habitats and varying resources, the literature can often appear slightly contradictory on first reading. As a result of the dependence of the species on such a diversity of resources, its use of any one resource type will vary greatly depending upon the context of the habitats and resources alternatively available to it. Naturally, there are some resources which are common to most hare populations and which are, in almost all cases, more commonly used or avoided. These are summarised in Table 47. It is clear from Table 47 that hares use a wide variety of resources, and that these resources vary between times of year; habitats that are selected for in one season may be selected against at other times. However, even these generalisations belie a further level of complexity in habitat use. Further details of these conflicts and caveats are given, with examples, below.


185

Table 47 Resource use by brown hares in Wales in (a) the breeding season and (b) outside the breeding season. Black cells indicate strong positive association. Grey cells indicate weaker positive association. Blank cells indicate no association. Key: (11. Barnes et al. 1983; 1. Bresinski 1983; 23. Hansson 2002; 7. Hutchings and Harris 1996; 20. Kaluzinski and Pielowski 1976; 15. Kunst et al. 2001; 12. Lewandowski and Nowakowski 1993; 13. Macdonald et al. 2007; 3. Mason 2005; 19. Meriggi and Alieri 1989; 21. Milanaova and Dimov 1990; 18. Natural England 2007; 14. Pepin 1989; 5. Pepin and Angbault 2007; 22. Rödel et al. 2004; 6. Rühe and Hohmann 2004; 17. Rural Development Service 2005; 4. Smith et al. 2004; 9. Smith et al. 2005b; 2. Tapper and Barnes 1986; 10. University of Bristol 2003; 16. van der Wal et al. 1998; 8. Vaughan et al. 2003).

(a) Breeding season (b) Outside breeding seasonBuildings 1 Buildings 1Woodland 2, 23 Woodland 2, 19, 23Scrub 2 Scrub 2Hedges 3 Hedges 3Margins/rough grass 4, 5, 19 Margins/rough grass 5, 19Ploughed land 5, 6 Winter cereals 5Harrowed land 5 Broad-leaved crops 5Cereal crops 7 Set-aside / fallow 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 7, Broad-leaved crops 7 Ploughed land 5, 6, 7 Set-aside / fallow 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 Ungrazed pastural grassland 4, 18 Ungrazed pastural grassland 4, 11 Grazed pastural grassland 3, 7Grazed pastural grassland 11Buildings 1 Buildings 1Mature woodland 7, 9 Mature woodland 3, 22, 23Market gardens 3 Market gardens 3Hedges 7, 12 Scrub and young trees 3, 22Margins/rough grass 3, 13, 19 Hedges 7, 12, 22Cereal crops 6, 7, 14 Margins/rough grass 3, 13, 19Broad-leaved crops 8, 14 Winter cereals 3, 7Set-aside / fallow 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 Winter stubble 18Saltmarsh 15, 16 Broad-leaved crops 8, 9Heaths 3 Set-aside / fallow 3, 4, 7, 9, 10Silage crop 17 Saltmarsh 15, 16Ungrazed pastural grassland 4, 11 Ungrazed pastural grassland 4Grazed pastural grassland 3Buildings 3Mature woodland 3Scrub and young trees 3Hedges 3Margins/rough grass 4, 8, 9, 10Cereal crops 14Broad-leaved crops 14Lucerne and alfalfa 20, 21Ungrazed pastural grassland 4, 8, 9, 10Set-aside / fallow 4, 8, 9, 10Silage crop 17Grazed pastural grassland 4, 11

Lyin

g-up

hab

itat

Fora

ging

hab

itat

Bree

ding

hab

itat

Lyin

g-up

hab

itat

Fora

ging

hab

itat

The manner in which hares use resources can be extremely complex, and it is often hard to make generalisations about whether one habitat type is providing for hares or not. For example, hedgerows may be selected for or against by hares depending upon their immediate environment and circumstances. In many ways, hedges provide an excellent resource for hares. Young woody tissue and shoots in hedgerows can provide an excellent food source, especially in winter (Mason 2005) and the longer grasses that may remain uncut or ungrazed beneath them can add value also. They also provide much needed shelter for lying up (Tapper and Barnes 1986) especially in exposed (for example, upland) landscapes. However, conflicting with both of these beneficial aspects is the tendency for hedgerows to act as reservoirs of, and corridors for, many of their predators such as stoats and foxes (Reid et al. 2007)- which can cause hares actively to avoid hedgerows (Mason 2005). The need to avoid surprise attack by predators is a strong influence on hare foraging (good visibility allows them to make use of their speed advantage) and some research suggests they may even choose to forage in more heavily livestock grazed areas where it provides better predator visibility (Karmiris and Nastis 2006). In general, though, most


186

research indicates that hedgerows (and field margins generally) are largely beneficial (Lewandowski and Nowakowski 1993) and may even be associated with increased hare numbers in both pastoral and arable landscapes (Hutchings and Harris 1996). Most publications recommending particular combinations of landscape features to benefit hares therefore cite hedgerows as a positive component (Hutchings and Harris 1996; Rural Development Service 2005; Tapper and Barnes 1986), but caveats are also often given- for example, do not locate other positive habitat features for hares (e.g. uncut grassland, which is rich in food but provides poor predator visibility) near hedges (Game Conservancy Trust 2007), in order to reduce the predator threat. Thus Table 47 reflects the general advantages offered to hares by foraging in hedgerows, but in specific case studies, local factors should be taken into consideration. In relation to the present study, some apparent contradictions in the literature with regard to habitat resource use by hares are also removed from Table 47 by making assumptions derived from the geographical limitation of the present study to Wales. For example, grassland ley is a rarer resource in an arable landscape like east England, and so may be favoured by hares (Tapper and Barnes 1986) as it increases the variety of their diet, whereas conversely in pastoral landscapes, hares will tend to be proportionately more abundant in more locally limiting habitats such as arable. In other words, pasture is positively associated with hares when it is only a small component of the landscape matrix, but negatively when it is a dominant feature (Smith et al. 2005a). Thus because Wales is predominantly pastoral, in Table 47, arable has been assigned a proportionately stronger association, and pasture a weaker one, than if resource use by hares had been considered at a UK-wide level. The tendency of hares to use any one resource or habitat in a given situation is also dependent upon trade-offs between issues such as the size and timing of that resource, and how it fits into the mosaic of other resources available at any one time. For example, there is always a trade-off between small fields (which tend to provide a greater overall diversity of food sources for a given area) and larger ones (where greater visibility results in less predation; Cowan 2004). Research has shown that the effects on a hare population resulting from field size, presence of pasture and presence of woodland depends on spatial scale of those resources (Smith et al. 2005a). Resources such as those listed in Table 47 cannot even be considered completely independent for this very reason; foraging habitat of preference may be affected by location (e.g. proximity to breeding habitat) as well as food abundance (Vickery et al. 2004). Because of the importance of these landscape-scale features of a hare’s environment, the value of any one resource is often as much about the way that resource is managed as the resource itself. A good resource can readily be dismissed if it harbours predators, or is vulnerable to disturbance. Thus, sympathetic management is key to optimising the value of any habitat for hares, reinforcing the potential of schemes like Tir Gofal to benefit the species. For example, providing open spaces between tall crops can increase their value to hares as they allow predators to be seen and thus avoided during foraging (Tapper and Barnes 1986). Ungrazed silage fields provide an excellent resource for hares in terms of food supply, and also undisturbed cover in which to breed. However, since silage fields are normally first cut early in the summer when leverets are still small and are left alone and in situ by the mother, silage cutting (especially with modern, fast machinery) can result in high mortality rates in breeding animals (Cowan 2004; Hutchings and Harris 1996; Robinson and Sutherland 2002). However, much of this mortality can be avoided by the simple management technique of cutting silage from the middle of the field to the outside, instead of the more traditional, reverse technique. Starting centrally allows hares to escape (Game Conservancy Trust 2007; Rural Development Service 2005), and leaving additional uncut areas (as prescribed by Tir Gofal) then provides a refuge. The same technique can be used to the hare’s advantage when harvesting any other crop in which hares might be foraging or lying-up (Mason 2005). All these factors can combine to improve the quality of any resource for hares. More general historic and modern land management techniques also influence resource use by hares. Myxomatosis and the associated low rabbit numbers favour hares by reducing competition (Hutchings and Harris 1996). Gamekeepering has been associated with higher hare numbers, but it is thought to be related to the greater diversity of landscape that is traditionally associated with gamekeepered estates,


187

and reduced poaching on the land, rather than directly to reduced predator numbers (Hutchings and Harris 1996). This last point comes back to the principal feature which most studies have cited as being critical to the success of hare populations- diversity of resources in the landscape (Hutchings and Harris 1996; Tapper and Barnes 1986) or even degree of variation within individual fields (Lewandowski and Nowakowski 1993), with food resources used by hares becoming even more diverse as food becomes scarce overall (Rödel et al. 2004). In fact Tapper and Barnes (1986) cite a long list of particular habitats associated with high hare densities: that any 1km square of arable land would also ideally contain hedgerow, ditch, winter cereal, grassland ley, sugar beet and oilseed rape. This diversity also needs to be maintained throughout the year, thereby continuing to provide this range of resources, producing both temporal AND spatial heterogeneity (Smith et al. 2004). Heterogeneity within any one resource also seems to be as important as a variety of overall resource types (Smith et al. 2004); one reason why saltmarsh, a patchy habitat, may provide such good cover and forage, being so inherently variable (Kunst et al. 2001). Habitat quality and heterogeneity also affect natal dispersal of brown hares (Bray et al. 2007). All of these factors suggest a large geographical scale is required when looking at resource provision for hares. Thus the literature is able to point to a number of resources which are, in themselves clearly very valuable to hares, and yet overall some authors believe that there may be no simple answer as to what constitutes “optimal hare habitat” overall (Cowan 2004). Nonetheless, it is certainly possible to identify combinations of resources that are valuable in different ways; combinations that allow foraging at all times of year, allowing the management of landscapes to increase diversity for the benefit of hares. This provides the opportunity to combine knowledge about resource use by hares with decisions concerning management techniques, through schemes like Tir Gofal, to improve the suitability of landscapes for hares. UK-wide threats identified by the national Species Action Plan include conversion of grasslands to arable, loss of habitat diversity on agricultural land, and changes in planting and cropping regimes (such as the move from hay to silage and autumn-sown cereals) (UK Biodiversity Group 2008). Whilst it is considered a pest in parts of east England, it is relatively well received by most landowners in Wales, and many are aware when hares are present on their land and are pleased to have them (Wilberforce, pers. obs.), which facilitates survey effort. Hares are considered an important species for indicating the quality of lowland agricultural habitats (Cowan 2004), so they are an important indicator both for past habitat losses, and now for positive changes- including any achieved by AES. The brown hare has previously been used as an indicator for urbanisation and the intensification of agriculture (Lundström-Gilliéron 2003) and can also be used for the reverse process. There is relatively little existing evidence from the UK about the specific effects of AES on the brown hare, and what exists is mixed, making future monitoring critical. For example, one study of a pilot arable stewardship in England found no difference in hare numbers between stewardship and control sites (Tapper 2001), evidence later corroborated by two further studies (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003; Reid et al. 2007). However, it is known that in the UK the potential to increase brown hare numbers by appropriate management is much greater in pastoral landscapes than in arable (Cowan 2004; Smith et al. 2004). This is backed up by another study that found that while there was no positive influence on the abundance of hares resulting from the presence of grassland in arable farms, the introduction of arable to grassland farms might well be beneficial (Hutchings and Harris 1996). Both these pieces of evidence suggest a great opportunity in Wales, where brown hare could be considerably advantaged by the application of Tir Gofal prescriptions. This is particularly relevant across a large holding that has entered Tir Gofal, as it is widely reported that increased diversity and heterogeneity of habitat benefits hares (Cowan 2004; Lewandowski and Nowakowski 1993; Noble et al. 2005; Robinson and Sutherland 2002; Smith et al. 2004) and that this will be delivered through AES options in Wales. As a result, the brown hare is a priority species that stands to gain significantly from changes to the landscape instigated by such schemes, and being relatively straightforward to identify and survey, is an ideal species on which to monitor the effects of schemes such as Tir Gofal.


188

8.3.2.3 water vole The water vole inhabits a range of wetland habitats including marshy grassland, reedbed and river banks, where it forages and shelters in dense riparian vegetation such as grasses, sedges and herbaceous plants. Inappropriately high grazing levels can reduce the amount of suitable vegetation available to water voles and can also lead to poaching of the river bank and trampling of burrow systems. Conversely, inappropriately low levels of grazing can lead to the development of scrub and woodland within the water vole habitat, which reduces the riparian vegetation required for water vole as well as providing ideal conditions for predators such as the American mink. The loss of water vole habitat as a result of agricultural intensification has been well documented in recent years (Barreto et al. 1998; Rushton et al. 2000) and has involved the drainage of many wetland habitats and the conversion of semi and un-improved grasslands to rye grass swards, with heavy sheep grazing being particularly detrimental (Jefferies 2003). However, studies have shown that water vole populations respond well to habitat enhancement schemes on agricultural land ((Strachan and Moorhouse 2006), which as already been demonstrated in England (Strachan et al 2003; Critchley and Hodkinson 1993), with Countryside Stewardship Schemes in England already delivering water vole conservation (Strachan, R. pers. comm.). Resource requirements for water vole have been relatively well documented, and show the species to be strongly associated with slow flowing or lentic waterbodies that support a good bank structure for burrowing, riparian vegetation (such as grasses, sedges and reeds) for food and shelter (Carter and Bright 2003; Moorhouse pers. comm.; Strachan and Moorouse 2006) and a minimum water depth of 1m (Strachan and Jefferies 1993; Strachan and Moorhouse 2006). Despite these preferences water voles can be found in a multitude of wetland and freshwater habitats, indeed Strachan and Jefferies (1993) demonstrated that nearly all freshwater habitats in Great Britain can be utilised by water vole to some degree. However riparian habitats dominated by dense scrub and woodland or spate rivers with impenetrable rocky banks are rarely inhabited by the species (Strachan 1998; Strachan and Moorhouse 2006). When trying to ascertain the resource requirements for water vole it is important that other factors such as American mink predation and proximity to extant water vole populations be taken into consideration as their effect on determining the suitability of a habitat cannot be overlooked (Barreto et al. 1998; Halliwell and Macdonald 1995; Macdonald and Strachan 1999). These additional factors have been taken into consideration when assessing the resource requirements for water vole (Table 48). As Table 48 shows, water voles utilise a number of resources, strongly associated with wetland and freshwater habitats, which themselves can be found within a pastoral or arable landscape matrix. This indicates that although these agricultural practices may not directly support the resources required by water vole, they can support freshwater and wetland habitat (drainage ditches, streams and ponds etc) that can provide resources, if managed appropriately. Reduced grazing pressure through livestock exclusion and buffer zones can allow the growth of riparian vegetation needed by water vole as well as reducing incidents of soil compaction and burrow collapse, thus increasing the suitability of wetland habitats within a predominantly improved agricultural landscape (Critchley and Hodkinson 1999; Strachan et al 2003; Strachan and Holmes-Ling 2003). Grassland habitats represented in Table 48 have therefore been assigned a weak association, whereas the wetland habitat features they support have been assigned a stronger association, based on their ability to provide the specific resources for the species.


189

Table 48 Water Vole resource requirements from the literature review. Black cells indicate strong positive association. Grey cells indicate weaker positive association. Blank cells indicate no association.

Woodland 2, 3, 4, 5, 19Scrub 2, 3, 4, 5, 19Hedgerow 20, 21Buffer zone 2, 4, 5, 18, 26, 27Drainage Ditch 2, 3, 4, 5, 23Lake and Pond 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 16, 18Streams and Rivers 2, 3, 4, 5Upland Wetlands 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 23, 24Marshy grassland 4, 5, 7, Unimproved Grassland 2, 4, 19Semi-Improved Grassland 2, 4, 19Improved Grassland (Grazed) 2, 4, 19Heathland 4, 7, 23, 24Bog 2, 4, 3, 13, 15, 17, 23Reedbeds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 25Fens and Swamp 2, 4, 5,Saltmarsh and Estuary 4,Ploughed and Harrowed 22

Key: 1 Carter and Bright, 2003 2 Strachan and Jefferies, 1993 3 Macdonald and Strachan, 1999 4 Strachan and Moorhouse, 2006 5 Strachan, 1998 6 Parry, 2006 7 Parry, 2007 8 Parry, 2005 9 Aars et al. 2000 10 Woodroffe, 1988 11 Charles, 2003 12 Harris, 2003 13 Bayliss, 2005 14 Walsh and Hall, 2005 15 – Lambin et al. 1999 16 Ball, 2000 17 Strachan and Bonesi, 1998 18 Strachan and Holmes-Lingm, 2003 19 Jefferies, 2003 20 Water Vole Action Plan 21 Berthier et al. 22 Water Vole Action Plan 23 Williamson, 2003 24 Anderson and Rogers, 2003 25 Moorhouse, Pers Comm. 26 Critchley et al, 1999 26 Strachan et al, 2003 Despite evidence indicating that the fruits and bark of young trees and scrub can be an important resource for water vole in winter months (Strachan and Bonesi 1998; Strachan and Moorhouse 2006; Forman pers. comm.), contradictory evidence indicates that these habitats can be detrimental if left unmanaged, allowing the scrub to engulf a water vole habitat (Jefferies 2003; Strachan and Jefferies 1993; Strachan and Moorhouse 2006). Woodland and scrub can shade out and suppress the growth of riparian vegetation, as well as harbour predator species such as otter, fox (Forman 2005) and American mink (Halliwell and Macdonald 1995; Macdonald and Strachan 1999). This reduces the suitability of the habitat for water vole in the long term (if unmanaged), as highlighted in Table 48. Therefore small patches of scrub within water vole habitat should be retained to provide additional foraging and sheltering opportunities, ensuring encroachment into suitable habitat is restricted. This illustrates some of the complexities and practical difficulties in water vole conservation and further strengthens the need to identify actual and potential water vole habitat before conservation measures are introduced. Upland habitats including rhos pasture and upland heath, although not generally regarded as optimal water vole habitat have become a source of increased water vole conservation efforts in recent years (Aars et al. 2000; Anderson and Rogers 2003), especially in Wales (Williamson 2003). In upland habitats, water voles predominantly inhabit the upper watersheds (Aars et al. 2000; Anderson and Rogers 2003; Strachan 2006), but can in some situations be found away from the main water course, especially in Molinia


190

tussocks. However, the uplands of Wales are often heavily grazed by sheep (Brown and Edwards 2006; Jefferies 2003) reducing their ability to support water vole habitat and suitable dispersal corridors. Little evidence suggests that water vole regularly frequent salt marsh and estuary environments (Strachan and Moorhouse 2006), preferring instead, the reedbed and sedgebed habitat at the lower reaches of rivers and coastal plain, where they can persist despite fluctuations in water level (Strachan and Moorhouse 2006). Reedbeds and other large expansive wetland habitats have been proven to be of great benefit to water vole, by providing suitable habitat and acting as a buffer to predator species such as American mink and other Mustelids (Carter and Bright 2003). As the use of a wetland habitat by water voles not only depends of the specific environmental criteria required by the species but also on the presence or otherwise of predator species, in particular the American mink, whose impacts on water vole populations have been well documented (Barreto and Macdonald 1999; Halliwell and Macdonald 1995; Macdonald and Strachan 1999; Parry 2006). Therefore, wetlands and other suitable habitat in well managed, actively game-keepered farmland can be of additional benefit, by reducing the impact of predators. This is also true of habitats which receive relatively frequent levels of disturbance, preventing the colonisation of American mink, which is more susceptible to human disturbance (Dunstone 1993) than water vole (Ball 2000; Parry 2006; Strachan and Jefferies 1993). However, water vole populations in close proximity to farmyards and human habitation can succumb to the predation by domestic cats (Parry pers. obs.) and bring them into contact with brown rat, which may compete for habitat and predate on juveniles (Strachan and Moorhouse 2006). Given the general and specific habitat requirements of the water vole, it is possible for the species to inhabit a multitude of wetland and riparian habitats in a pastoral and arable landscape, providing they are appropriately managed. 8.3.3 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for mammals The following additional matters and limitations that need to be considered are in addition to those mentioned in the sections 3.4.4 and 4.2.4. 8.3.3.1 Bats The potential impacts on bats of specific prescriptions were assessed and scored as follows: Woodlands, orchards, parklands and scrub prescriptions Prescriptions for mature woodland and trees (TG1, some TG3 and the TG14 prescriptions that included woodland) all score very well for noctules and pipistrelles because these species utilise woodland and trees not only for foraging and commuting, but also for roosting both in summer and winter. All of TG37 also scores well, provided woodland rather than scrub is established for TG37A. These prescriptions have the potential to provide all three requirements (i.e. roosting, foraging and commuting) for noctules and pipistrelles. However, serotine and lesser horseshoe bats are hardly ever found roosting in trees and so these prescriptions will only ever deliver some of their requirements (i.e. foraging and commuting). Even so, for serotines and lesser horseshoes especially, the value of woodland will be enhanced if stock, particularly cattle, are grazed (because of the associated invertebrates forming part of those bats’ diets). TG37B-D has the potential to provide for all needs of noctules and pipistrelles only if allowed to mature to provide roosting opportunities. Orchards will be used for foraging and commuting by all four focal bat species, but it is unlikely that fruit trees would be of a size or type to provide roosting opportunities for noctules and pipistrelles. (That said, bats have been known to roost in fruit trees if they provide suitable cracks and crevices.) Parkland prescriptions, with existing mature trees, can again provide all three requirements for noctules and pipistrelles and, if grazed by stock (especially cattle) will provide enhanced foraging areas especially for serotines and lesser horseshoes. Whether light grazing or existing grazing benefits bats more will


191

depend upon the intensity of the existing grazing and on existing vegetation; it could be that more intense grazing will provide more insect prey and therefore be of more benefit, but not if it is excessively damaging to the vegetation relied upon by invertebrates for their different life stages. Scrub (TG2) tends to benefit bat species in providing foraging areas (increased insect prey) and commuting routes at its edge especially, although it is unlikely to be of much consequence to noctules as they tend to fly high above the ground and so may not be affected by it. Prescription TG63 (trees and shrubs) potentially provides all resource requirements for noctules and pipistrelles, and foraging and commuting requirements for serotines and lesser horseshoe bats. Grassland and heath prescriptions Grassland and heath prescriptions, at best, provide only foraging benefits for bats unless woodland is allowed to regenerate (in which case all three requirements of noctules and pipistrelles could be met). However, introduction of stock (e.g. TG10B) enhances bat foraging opportunities especially for serotine and lesser horseshoes, but probably only in conjunction with woodland or scrub regeneration since these two species tend to prefer to forage along such vegetation rather than out in the open. Noctules and, to an extent, pipistrelles however will fly in relatively open areas. Grassland managed as haymeadow (e.g. TG8A and TG10A) may also increase insect prey for bats, particularly if the hay is cut late after flowering, although at certain times of the year (July/August) presence of cattle (e.g. TG8B and TG10B) would probably provide more food for juvenile bats than land managed as haymeadow. Similar assessments were made for TG32A1-B1, but TG32B21 and 22 score negatively for serotines and lesser horseshoes because of the option to exclude stock (which reduces insect availability) in order to manage for lapwing and wildfowl. Whether bats benefit from conversion of improved (or semi-improved) grassland to unimproved grassland (TG32) therefore depends upon whether there was existing stock and whether stock is being removed or introduced. A reduction in fertilisers and herbicides could increase the variety of invertebrate prey available, but a reduction in stocking densities could reduce the overall abundance of invertebrate prey. Management of upland heath (TG5) for heather can benefit bats at flowering times when insects are abundant; pipistrelles have been recorded flying in the open in upland moorland during heather flowering time (Irwin, pers. comm.) and noctules tend to forage in open areas. Serotines and lesser horseshoes, on the other hand, are unlikely to forage in these areas as taller vegetation is absent. Creation of heathland vegetation on acid grassland or on improved farmland (TG40A and TG41 respectively) is likely to be detrimental to serotines and lesser horseshoes if clearance of taller vegetation and reduction in stock causes reductions in bat commuting routes and foraging areas/prey items. All of the TG7 prescriptions score 1 only if Objective 5 (broadleaved woodland and grazing) is included; otherwise the score would be 0 for the focal bat species. Maritime cliff and slope management (TG16) will probably not impact on bats because such areas are probably too exposed and windy for bats to forage or commute along (unless scrub is already established there). However, barbastelle bats have been recorded flying in similar exposed areas in Norfolk (Norfolk Bat Group, pers. comm.). The TG35 prescriptions (restoration of semi-improved grassland to unimproved grassland), all score 1 because it is felt that some benefit will accrue in terms of improved insect abundance. However, a score of minus 2 would result for serotines and lesser horseshoe bats if stocking densities were reduced as a result of implementing the prescription. Prescription TG36 enables scores of 1 for all bat species because generally an increase in water will increase insect prey abundance. However, if this is at the expense of trees, hedgerows or scrub, then it may fail to score at all for bats, depending upon the site circumstances and immediate locality.


192

Generally, invasive control (TG50, TG51 and TG52) scores as having no consequence for bat species, but if invasive control removed commuting routes then these prescriptions would score as detrimental. Scrub clearance, on the other hand, has scored as detrimental for all focal species except noctule bats because of the potential removal of commuting routes and foraging areas. (Noctule bats will generally fly and forage high enough such that scrub clearance would not directly impact on them.) Arable Prescriptions Bats tend to avoid arable land, although general bat activity is higher on organic farms than non-organic (refer to literature review), and so the presumption against pesticides and artificial fertilisers (e.g. TG24) will benefit all the bat species in terms of foraging. However, well-connected arable land with hedgerows and tree lines will be used for foraging and commuting by all bat species. Although winter-based prescriptions like TG25 and TG27 do not directly impact on bats and so score 0, winter stubbles and presumptions against spraying would produce better conditions for over-wintering invertebrates whose lifecycle includes a stage in the soil and so, depending upon the species present, could in fact score 1 in some localities. TG26 and TG28-31 would provide some improved foraging opportunities for bats, especially common pipistrelles, particularly if also associated with adjacent hedgerows. All of TG31 scored 1 for all four bat species, as conversion is likely to increase insect prey abundance especially if stock is introduced. Wetland Prescriptions The prescriptions for bog (TG12) score 1 for bats only if they are not too open in aspect, since their positive management could provide insect prey for bats; however, bogs on open and exposed moorland are less likely to provide a foraging resource for bats than if situated in more sheltered areas. Coastal grazing marsh prescriptions TG14/10A-TG14/13 all score 1 as they have the capacity to deliver improved foraging for bats especially if stock are included, but probably only if the aspect is not too open (which is particularly important for serotines and lesser horseshoes). TG14/15A-TG14/17 prescriptions have been scored as having no consequence for the focal bat species because the areas for which they are relevant are probably too open. However, TG14/17 could score 1 for noctules and pipistrelles if management included addition of stock. The addition of woodland though, especially with stock (TG14/1B and TG14/1C), increases scores to 3 for noctules and pipistrelles as woodland could provide roosting opportunities, and to 1 for serotines and lesser horseshoe bats because of the improved foraging and commuting opportunities. Coastal grazing marsh managed with scrub and lowland heath (TG14/2 and TG14/6) could provide some commuting and foraging opportunities for all focal species except noctules – again because their flight and foraging is out in the open high above the ground and so such management will have very limited benefit for that species. Coastal grazing marsh prescriptions TG14/8A-TG14B should all increase insect abundance and hence foraging opportunities, with TG14A benefiting particularly serotines and lesser horseshoes if water, stock and hedgerows are maintained. The saltmarsh prescriptions at TG15 are probably going to occur in places too open to have any consequence for our four bat species, although if scrub was allowed to establish on TG15C this could provide an enhanced foraging area. Prescriptions for boundaries and other linear or localised features Hedgerow restoration provides benefits for bats as commuting routes and some foraging areas for all species. Non-living linear features, however, (e.g. slate fences) are scored as being of no consequence for bats. In wide open or flat landscapes (such as East Anglia or the Somerset Levels) such features could provide some benefit, but in a diverse landscape such as that of much of agricultural Wales, the four bat focal species are more likely to use more ‘definite’ features such as hedgerows and woodland/scrub edges. However, stone walls could potentially provide roosting opportunities for single or small numbers of pipistrelles at any time of the year, particularly if adjacent to good foraging areas with an absence of other roosting opportunities nearby.


193

Streamside corridors (TG38) provide benefits in enhancing insect availability for all bat species, and can be further enhanced with the addition of riparian vegetation (see literature review). Ditch casting can also increase insect availability. Pollarding was a difficult prescription to score. Checks must always be carried out for presence of roosts before any pollarding takes place, and the law followed in this respect. In the short term pollarding may be detrimental to all bat species in that it reduces insect potential and foraging areas especially for serotines and lesser horseshoes which prefer to forage near to vegetation. However, in the longer term it may provide benefits in extending the life of the tree and potentially providing further roosting opportunities for noctules and pipistrelles. Prescriptions such as pond restoration/creation, bunds and sluices all have the capacity to increase insect availability because of introducing water-bodies, and so these score 1 for all four bat species. Erection of bat boxes in appropriate locations may provide roosting opportunities for noctules and pipistrelles and so TG62 scores 1 for these species. It is of no consequence for serotines and lesser horseshoes, which do not use bat boxes. Some species outside the four focal bat species will also use bat boxes for roosting, but survey must be undertaken prior to their erection and bat box design must be carefully considered to ensure that non-target species are not encouraged to the detriment of rarer species. Nest boxes for birds of prey should not be located near to bat roosts or foraging areas as they have been reported to prey on bats (Kent Bat Group pers. comm.) and, although barn owls are not known to take bats, these (TG61) should ideally be placed away from bat roosts. Prescriptions for Special Projects These were not scored because there is no advance knowledge of the options that these cover. Assessment overview – management of existing land The assessment scoring needs to be interpreted with caution because assessment of appropriate prescriptions should be influenced not only by the prescriptions, but also by existing management of the land which, for the purposes of this exercise, we did not know. For instance, conversion of improved grassland to semi-improved grassland may, in fact, reduce foraging opportunities for bat focal species if existing cattle are to be excluded, resulting in fewer invertebrates such as dung beetles and other cattle associated insects. However, if cattle are not present on that land, then conversion should increase insect abundance and variety. 8.3.3.1.1 Caveats to scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for bats Limitations of the bat species chosen with respect to decisions on how scoring was implemented and prescriptions grouped All partners to the project agreed that the prescriptions for all TG1 broadleaved woodland categories should be merged. However, for bats this worked for scoring only because adding grazing to woodland still did not take the prescriptions from a 1 score to a 3 score for serotines and lesser horseshoe bats. As neither of these species roost in trees they remained at a 1 score overall even though foraging conditions could be improved. However, if foraging, commuting and roosting activities had been scored individually then merging would not have worked because scores would have changed for foraging for serotines and lesser horseshoe bats; the overall score given for each species meant that the score levelled out what would have been differences in the prescriptions’ effects on each activity. Furthermore, if one of the focal species roosted in trees and favoured dung beetles, prescriptions again could not have been merged unless foraging/commuting/roosting were scored individually for each species. This is because the addition of cattle grazing would increase the score for that species from a 1 to a 3. This caveat needs to be considered when assessing broadleaved woodland prescriptions for bats.


194

Implications of scoring methodology chosen Having scored all prescriptions for all four bat species, the serotines and lesser horseshoe bats resulted in identical scores. This may lead to false impressions that these two species have the same resource requirements, which is not the case. Had foraging, commuting and roosting requirements been scored separately, or were the scores able to show more refinement (for instance ‘some delivery’ being split into ‘some delivery and good delivery’ for instance, then the scores would have shown more variation and better reflected the requirements of these two species. Limitations arising from the choice of the four bat species Two of the bat species chosen for this project have limitations for an exercise such as this; firstly there are very few serotine records in Wales, making it difficult to make judgments on key areas and whether beneficial prescriptions overlap with species hot-spots. On the other hand, the ubiquitous nature of pipistrelles also means that it is difficult to draw conclusions as to how the scheme is delivering for pipistrelles using the scoring methodology with the datasets. In hindsight, perhaps assessing soprano pipistrelle separate from common pipistrelle (because of its affinity for water bodies and slightly less widespread nature) would have indicated more overlap with key areas, although this too may be tricky to interpret due to relatively few records for soprano pipistrelle. Both serotine and lesser horseshoe bats are extremely unlikely to receive all their resource requirements from the Tir Gofal scheme as it currently stands because there is no prescription for maintaining/enhancing the biodiversity value of traditional farm buildings or underground caves/mines. Their roosting requirements could be delivered only as an incidental result of managing buildings for historical or aesthetic reasons, but this is probably unlikely. Further issues with the scoring Some of the descriptions within the prescriptions gave further options to those indicated in the prescription heading, and for some a range of scores could actually be given depending upon which option was taken up; for instance, the option to reduce or exclude stock, whether sheep or cattle were grazed (this affects associated invertebrates), whether scrub was allowed to regenerate rather than trees. For instance, TG37A would score 3 for noctules and pipistrelles if woodland, but only 1 if scrub. TG32A1 could potentially score as detrimental for serotines and lesser horseshoe bats if stock were reduced. Such complexities made some of the prescriptions very difficult to score, and in some cases value judgments may have been made. This should be borne in mind. 8.3.3.2 brown hare The rationale and caveats behind allocation of prescription scores for brown hare are as follows: Woodlands, orchards, parklands and scrub Prescriptions for established woodlands (TG1) all scored relatively well for adult hares throughout the year, as they provide both cover and some food resources, though the less grazed the woodland, the higher the score in both respects. However they are not used for breeding, and use by adult hares may also be limited when woodlands act as reservoirs for predators such as foxes. The same applies to scrub (TG2). However, one advantage for scrub is the cutting regime suggested in the scrub management prescription, which will increase the value of the food resource by providing young, new shoots, especially in spring when food can generally be short. For orchards and parklands, the generally reduced stocking densities would benefit hares, as would leaving areas of grassland uncut. Hedge management would also improve the habitat. The exception in this category is parkland (arable), where in a Welsh context, the introduction of stock and removal of arable- a scarce resource, nationally- is likely to be to the detriment of hares. In contrast, prescriptions for creating new woodland (TG37) have scored minimally, and not at all for leverets. Whilst woodland does provide some advantages, as discussed for established woods, a large area of woodland is not needed and loss of grassland to woodland is generally disadvantageous, unless


195

within a particularly un-wooded landscape. However, rather contrary to the intention of the prescriptions, newly planted woodland may well provide a good food resource to adult hares, especially in winter, as they will eat the bark and young shoots of tree whips and saplings. Grasslands and heaths In general, prescriptions for unimproved grasslands were particularly likely to introduce changes that would benefit adult hares at all times of year, and also be to the advantage of leverets. The reduced stocking density and encouragement of native plants should increase the diversity and percentage cover of forbs, providing a greater range of food resource. Heath is not used as much by brown hare as mountain hare, so expansion of heath at the expense of unimproved grasslands could be detrimental, and creation of new heaths generally (TG40, 41), whilst it may add somewhat to diversity of food sources and provide some cover in more exposed landscapes, is not a major benefit, and any burning or cutting management (TG45) may disturb any hares that are using the heath or neighbouring habitats. Unimproved neutral grassland prescriptions will also benefit hares in many of the same ways as acid grasslands (improved variety of food resource), but most particularly TG8A (haymeadow). The later cutting safeguards the site for any leverets that are hidden in the sward, and reduced use of agri-chemicals is generally advantageous. The greater duration of tall vegetation provides cover and food, and leaving 10% uncut will mean that a refuge will be retained. Hares’ tendency to avoid stock means that any management prescriptions involving grazing will be less preferred than an undisturbed hay meadow, prior to cutting. For the semi-improved grasslands, again, haymeadow management scores most highly for its prescriptions, as it does for unimproved habitats. Maritime cliff and slope habitats (TG16 AandB) were harder to score. Where there is the potential for the management changes to reduce grazing, or even exclude it, this is to the advantage of hares at all stages. However, management for chough, for example, is likely to reduce the value of the habitat for hares as the sward needs to be maintained at a much shorter height than they prefer. Prescriptions for the conversion of grasslands (TG32) scored with some benefit to both breeding and non-breeding hares; general benefits from changing management including any reductions in stocking density that might occur, fewer agri-chemicals, and later cutting dates, with associated increases in diversity of species and hence food resources. Where prescriptions include hay cutting, the later cutting and the shutting up of land prior to the cut are likely to make the land parcel more valuable to hares for shelter and foraging. Restoration to unimproved grassland, particularly by haymeadow management (TG35 CandD) scored most highly as this is the most valuable grassland resource to hares. There are various prescriptions for increasing water levels on grasslands (TG36 A-E). These have failed to score for hares, as hares will forage even on the most improved of pastures, but re-wetting grassland may reduce their use of the habitat rather than increase it (although some wet grassland areas, e.g. Norfolk Broads, support high densities of hares – Smart pers. comm.). Prescriptions for the management of species in grasslands such as bracken (TG50), rhododendron (TG51), general scrub (TG53) and other invasives (TG52) scored moderate benefit for hares in all stages, as the management is likely to increase the total area of foraging land, whilst enough cover is retained to provide shelter. Arable Cropped land is generally a resource that is in short supply in Wales, so increased arable management is likely to provide well for hares, particularly for adult animals that are foraging. The Tir Gofal cutting dates are often late enough to avoid risk to most leverets lying up in the fields, and reductions in crop spraying avoid both the effects of agri-chemicals on the animals and the effects of physical disturbance by machinery. Rape and cereal crops are particularly favoured by hares, so in a Welsh context where arable is scarce, unsprayed cereal, rape and linseed crops (TG24A) and unsprayed cereal, rape and linseed crops (conversion from improved grass) score well. In fact, TG24, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 30 (arable) prescriptions


196

mention benefit to hares explicitly. Winter stubbles provide a food resource in winter. Crops undersown with grasses and legumes (TG26) scores well for summer food provision, as they provide good cover and good variety of resource. Rough grass margins and uncropped fallow margins score well both for hares and leverets, as they persist and provide cover for hares even when the bulk crop is harvested. They also provide refuge if leverets are present in a field at time of harvesting, if harvesting takes place from the centre of the field outwards, allowing animals to move away safely. The only disadvantage is that they may push animals closer to predator corridors along the field boundary, but they are still a vast improvement for hares compared to a cropped field with no uncut margins. The wildlife cover crop prescription (TG30) is also excellent, providing all of the above advantages, with an excellent quality and diversity of food resources, and a wider buffer strip than rough grass and uncropped fallow margins allow. Because arable crops are so unusual in an overall Welsh context, all prescriptions for conversion of arable land (TG31) failed to score benefit for hares. This would not necessarily have been the case if this study had been undertaken in a more arable area like East Anglia. Although grassland is used by hares, and grassland prescriptions have scored well, the loss of arable in favour of grassland is likely to be deleterious in the wider, Welsh context. Wetlands Marshy grassland TG11 prescriptions (and the Coastal Grazing Marsh equivalent, TG14) also have the potential to improve habitats for hares significantly, as reduced stocking density and cutting provides more opportunities for lying up undisturbed, especially where marshy grassland occurs in otherwise exposed, historically overgrazed upland environments. As with other grasslands the objective of encouraging native plants rather than common dominants such as Purple Moor-grass should increase the range of food sources available. Bogs, reedbeds, fens and swamps, by contrast, are wetter and not generally used so much by hares, and so the prescriptions relevant to these habitats do not stand to affect them to any great extent. Similarly, the creation of new habitats of these latter kinds (TG39, 42) are not likely to result in many positive changes. Management of existing saltmarshes scored relatively well for adult hares, as they are often used for foraging, especially in summer, and will do so even more with the prescription to exclude stock entirely between March and mid-July. Prescriptions for the management of land for breeding birds/waders (TG14/15B) were also potentially very advantageous to adult hares, due to the exclusion of stock during the breeding season. Sand dunes (TG14/17) also provide good cover for hares in Marram grass on stabilised dunes, and mature dunes also provide a range of food resources, which should be encouraged by the Tir Gofal prescriptions, especially with later cutting dates, and reduced agri-chemical use. Boundaries and other linear or localised features Boundary features were also hard to score as they can provide benefits in the forms of shelter and food resource, but also act as corridors for hares’ predators. In general, all linear features that are not living (walls, fences etc) provide more detriment in the form of supporting predators than they do advantage. However, hedgerows scored positively for adult hares because of the food resource they provide, but not for leverets, which are particularly vulnerable to predation. Management of streamside corridors also scored well, as the prescriptions provide year-round cover and varied food supply, with a refuge from grazing animals and agricultural machinery. Creation of many other features as prescribed in Tir Gofal, such as ditch casting (TG49), pond creation (TG56), bunds and sluices (TG58) and other capital works are not likely to impact directly on hares, and where they result in changes in habitat, the effects are already accounted for above. The effect of combinations of prescriptions on single parcels on brown hare According to the stated methodology (section 3.4.4.2) some parcels were re-scored when combinations of prescriptions on the same parcel of land provided a greater overall benefit for hares than either prescription in isolation.


197

For brown hares, these cases occurred where prescriptions TG26 (spring sown cereals undersown with grasses and legumes) and TG34A (managing improved grass for breeding lapwing), both of provide improvements for hares in the breeding season only, were combined in a parcel with prescriptions that provide improvements to hares outside the breeding season only (of which there are more, including for example TG2 scrub, TG5 upland heath). This does mean that these habitats are of no value to hares in the breeding season; merely that the prescription does not improve their value for the species at this time. This led to a total of 48 combinations of prescriptions that, if they occurred, could now potentially provide all the resources for brown hares in one field, which the individual prescriptions alone could not. However, none of these 48 combinations occurred on more than 50 parcels of land in Wales, so combinations of prescriptions on single parcels of land had no significant benefit for hares. 8.3.3.3 water vole One of the potential benefits of Tir Gofal is that it is a whole farm scheme, meaning that all aspects of the farm have to meet a minimum general requirement in addition to mandatory and optional prescriptions for wildlife habitats.

The general requirement ensures that water features such as ponds, lakes, ditches, rivers and streams are protected from potentially damaging operations such as overgrazing and the application of fertilizer, pesticides and farmyard manure, which can have negative implications for water vole. The negative impacts of excessive grazing on riparian habitats by livestock have been well documented and alluded to in the current study. Increased levels of fertiliser can alter soil chemistry and associated vegetation composition, and herbicide application can reduce the riparian vegetation structure and species richness, required for foraging and shelter. Therefore, the requirement to buffer water features will help safeguard existing habitat and growth of riparian vegetation, and encourages dispersal of water vole. However, it must be remembered that water voles require as wide a riparian corridor as possible (Strachan and Holmes-Ling 2003; Critchley and Hodkinson 1999) and a 1m buffer zone (as suggested by the Tir Gofal minimum water features requirement) alone will not be able to sustain the resource requirements of the species (Moorhouse pers. comm.). Other potential benefits of Tir Gofal ensure that farmers entering the scheme do not install new drainage systems, reduce existing water levels or clear ditches (without prior consent from Tir Gofal Project Officer). Despite drainage ditches being frequently used by water vole, additional ditches in the landscape will undoubtedly lead to a greater drainage of water from the land, and therefore a net loss in suitable water vole habitat. This would also be true of lowering existing water levels and clearing ditches (unsympathetically). The scheme also enables farmers to undertake training in habitat management and in the identification of potential water vole habitat and species field signs to determine the presence or otherwise of water vole on the farm holding. This could be of great benefit to water vole conservation, as identifying water vole populations on farms would allow the scheme to introduce water vole specific measures as well as link neighbouring Tir Gofal agreements in the catchment through appropriate management and habitat creation, increasing the benefit to the species in the wider countryside (Table 51). To date few training events for landowners have taken place in Wales, but some have been planned for summer 2008 (Burgess pers. comm.). Although the minimum requirements for Tir Gofal are likely to provide some resource requirements for water vole, it is clear that a great deal more is needed, which increases the significance of optional and mandatory management prescriptions for specific habitats, likely to provide all of the resource requirements. Woodland Orchards Parklands and Scrub


198

Woodland prescriptions (TG1A, 1B and 1C) and coastal grazing marsh woodland (TG14/1, 14/1B and 14/1C) are designed to maintain woodlands and manage them more appropriately for biodiversity, which will have minimum impact on water voles as this habitat is generally not favoured by the species, and so have been scored accordingly. As the proximity of water courses to woodland habitats is unknown the prescriptions could not be scored as potentially having a detrimental impact on water vole despite the fact that woodlands can harbour water vole predators. This is also true of creating new woodland habitats (TG37A, 37B and 37C), which for the most part seek to replant trees in previously wooded areas. The management prescription for scrub (TG2) however actively encourages its encroachment along riparian corridors and therefore within a water vole habitat, which although may provide important year-round foraging, the lack of long-term management may be to the detriment of the species. For this reason the prescription for scrub habitat has been scored negatively despite the caveat within the Tir Gofal manual stating ‘that scrub encroachment should not be encouraged where other ecologically important habitat has been identified’. The rationale for this is that the identification of water vole field signs, especially when occurring at low densities may be difficult to locate and therefore likely that the riparian habitat’s significance to water vole would be overlooked. The prescription for managing orchards (TG3AO and TG3BO) has the potential to provide additional foraging resources (fruit) for water vole during autumn, when riparian vegetation is receding. This coupled with the retention of 10% of the lightly grazed grassland in any one year results in the prescription being able to provide some of the resources required for water vole. It was felt that a maximum score could not be given for the management prescription as it has no direct relevance to wetland or riparian habitats and therefore may be situated away from water vole habitat. It is however believed that water voles inhabiting water features, such as ditches, ponds and streams adjacent to orchards within Tir Gofal would benefit from the management prescription. Management prescriptions for parkland habitat (TG3AP, 3BP and 3CP) aim to reinstate water features within the agreement, which could benefit local water vole populations by increasing the area of suitable wetland habitat. As the exact water features are not specified the prescription’s full potential for water vole could not be assessed, which was indicated in the scoring. Grassland and Heaths Grazing by sheep has been identified as having a detrimental impact on water vole habitat, especially in upland Wales (Jefferies 2003). Management prescriptions for grassland habitats aim to reduce grazing pressure within the pastoral landscape and therefore reducing pressure along riparian corridors and other important wetland habitats. Whether the reduction in grazing animals is significant is still uncertain and further studies are required on Tir Gofal farm holdings. Out of all grassland habitats, with exception of marshy grassland (TG11), unimproved grassland habitats and associated prescriptions (TG7, TG8 and TG9) have the greatest potential to provide resources for water vole by reducing stocking levels, therefore creating the diverse assemblage of plant species needed for foraging and shelter. Scrub encroachment will also be controlled. Despite the benefits of unimproved grassland, the prescriptions do not receive maximum scores as they would still rely on the presence of other wetland habitats to provide the specific resource requirements of the species. Riparian habitats supporting extant water vole populations would undoubtedly benefit if bordered by unimproved grassland prescriptions along with prescriptions aiming to convert improved and semi-improved pastures to unimproved. Heathland management prescriptions (TG5 and TG6) aim to encourage a greater diversity in species composition as well as increasing water levels. This will not only maintain and enhance existing habitat, but aid in the expansion of the habitat and increase the overall habitat available to water voles, which has been reflected in the scoring. Upland heath (TG5) management involves some practices that may be considered detrimental to water vole including reversing the dominance of Molinia, Eriophorum and Juncus, which are favoured food of water vole in these sub-optimal habitats, as well as blocking ditches which may flood burrows. However, these should be countered by increased vegetation diversity and overall increase in suitable habitat, but does further highlight the complexities in water vole conservation


199

and the need to identify extant water vole populations before implementing practical conservation measures. Arable The general requirement for arable prescriptions (TG24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30) if applied adjacent to wetland and riparian habitats supporting water vole would have additional benefits for the species by establishing a 1m wide buffer zone along field boundaries and water courses. Arable prescriptions TG24B and TG28 have been allocated the maximum score as water courses would receive additional buffering, creating conservation headlands of rough grasses and herbaceous vegetation up to 12m away from the watercourse. When converting grassland to arable a general requirement of 10m buffer zone must be established between treated grasslands and wetland habitats, further increasing the amount of suitable vegetation available to the species as well as enhance dispersal across the catchment. Wetlands Wetland management prescriptions (TG 11, TG12, TG13 and TG14) have the greatest potential for benefiting the species in Wales. Vital resource requirements can be attained through appropriate water level and grazing management, as well as by the creation and expansion of wetland habitats, such as marshy grassland, bogs, reedbeds and swamps. The general management requirements for marshy grassland prescriptions (TG11) aim to encourage a diversity of food-plants for this species. Those typically associated with marshy grassland include lousewort, devil’s-bit scabious and lesser spearwort and cross-leaved heath, tormentil and Carex spp. in upland sites. The prescription also aims to deter the encroachment of bracken and scrub into the habitat, whilst maintaining small patches of scrub by adopting suitable grazing regimes, which will also create a more diverse sward structure important for water vole, especially adjacent to riparian corridors. Potential water vole habitat could be benefited further by the promotion of shepherding flocks, ensuring that no one area is subject to localised overgrazing, especially at riparian corridors where overgrazing can cause a reduction in vegetation structure and diversity and also increases poaching of riverbanks, to the detriment of water vole burrows. For raised and blanket bog habitats the management prescriptions (TG12A and 12B) focus on encouraging a high water table suitable to support bog vegetation such as cross-leaved heath, Sphagnum spp, bog asphodel and round leaved sundew as well as discourage the spread of purple moor grass and hare’s tail cottongrass. The maintenance of a water table close to the soil surface will not only encourage a greater diversity in flora but will also prevent the extensive encroachment of scrub, whilst ensuring that small patches of scrub remain. This has the potential to benefit water vole in two ways, first by ensuring that important habitat does not wholly succumb to scrub, and secondly by ensuring that some patches of scrub remain, to act as an important foraging resource throughout the year. Other management objectives to safeguard bog habitat involve the establishment of a buffer zone reducing agricultural inputs from adjacent improved grasslands. This, coupled with increased water levels has the potential to increase the amount of suitable water vole habitat and therefore is of added benefit to the species. In addition to the prescription the capital works option looks to restore bog vegetation on degraded sites by complying with the general objectives of the management prescription as well as excluding livestock for at least five years or until the vegetation has recovered. This additional option in association with the general objective will increase the overall availability of suitable water vole habitat and is therefore likely to provide the resource requirements for water voles. Although the management objective for raised and blanket bog aims to discourage the spread of important upland water vole habitat such as purple moorgrass (used throughout the year for foraging, shelter and in some cases breeding), the prescription infers that there will be no net decrease in the extent of the current water vole resource, so the maximum score has been assigned with this caveat in mind.


200

The benefit of reedbeds and other extensive non-linear habitats such as fens and swamps have been well documented for their ability to provide suitable habitat and refuge from predator species such as American mink, which have greater success hunting over linear habitats such as stream and river habitats. Therefore the prescription could be of great benefit for water voles, if managed appropriately. The management prescriptions for these non-linear habitats (TG13) aim to encourage the growth of associated plant species, especially common reed as well as reed mace, and flag iris, all of which feature in the water vole diet. To achieve this, management prescriptions are designed to maintain surface wet conditions throughout the year, which will ensure the longevity of the habitat and create shallow flooding during winter months. Although these actions will benefit water vole through safeguarding the habitat and providing resource requirements for the species, the benefits will be increased during the breeding season as water voles tend to retreat into communal burrow systems during winter months. These are often found at the periphery of reedbeds or small islands within the habitat itself (Carter and Bright 2003). Other additional benefits to the management prescription are the prevention of encroaching scrub and the retention of open water areas. However, the prescription also suggests that existing woodland cover should be maintained, which may prove detrimental to water vole as woodland not only shades out suitable habitat but can also harbour predators such as American mink. In addition to the mandatory prescription requirement the capital works options (TG36E and TG39) also allow landowners to establish new reedbeds and swamps on previously improved land as well as establish buffer zones around the habitat by reducing agricultural inputs from adjacent improved grasslands, providing increased breeding habitat for water vole. To increase the prescription’s potential benefit for water voles further, small islands could be incorporated into newly created reedbeds to act as further winter shelter. To reduce predation pressure further it is recommended that the prescription reduce tree cover within and adjacent to non-linear habitats, which are favoured places of shelter for many native and non-native predator species. The creation and restoration of water bodies, such as ponds and small lakes (TG56) would have undoubted benefit for water vole, especially if the buffer zone prescription (TG33) was introduced to combat the deleterious impacts of grazing livestock, and designed in such a way as to provide banksides with suitable riparian vegetation and opportunities for burrowing. To increase the benefit of the newly created water bodies (TG56) further, habitat corridors could be established linking the newly created water bodies to other suitable wetland habitat within the agreement or within the landscape to allow the movement of the species and enable local water vole colonies to function as metapopulations within landscape. Boundaries and other local features As well as specific wetland habitat prescriptions, riparian corridors within a Tir Gofal agreement are subject to a 1m buffer zone, which although increasing the overall habitat available to the species on the farm will have limited putative benefits for the species in terms of breeding habitat or dispersal corridors. The prescription would however deliver more in terms of water vole conservation if applied to riparian corridors flowing through other suitable water vole habitat such as unimproved and marshy grassland. For the prescription to have a greater benefit to the species then the buffer zone should be as wide as possible (2-3m minimum). This fault in the prescription is ameliorated to some extent if Tir Gofal agreements adopt the streamside corridors prescription (TG38), which ensures an additional 6m wide strip of riparian corridor fenced from livestock along selected riparian corridors, beyond the mandatory 1m wide buffer zone. Although the Tir Gofal Management Plan explicitly states that one objective of the prescription is to provide for riparian


201

mammal species, it also aims to encourage the development of native trees, shrubs and tall vegetation, which would be to the detriment of the habitat and any extant water vole populations as well as become a barrier to future dispersal. To maintain the riparian corridor in suitable condition for water vole then periodic grazing management or manual cutting should be introduced to prevent the vegetation reverting to scrub. Unsympathetic ditch management has been identified as one of the contributory factors toward the decline in water vole habitat in recent decades, coupled with wetland drainage and conversion to improved pasture. The ditch casting prescription aims to sympathetically manage drainage ditches by only casting 20% of ditches within the agreement in any one year, ensuring that not all ditches are cleared at once, maintaining a good diversity of vegetation species and structure on the farm at all times. Although the hedgerow restoration prescription (TG18) has the potential to act as dispersal routes for water vole, conversely, it could be argued that hedgerows harbour potential predators, which would out way any perceived benefits, especially if there is only a relatively small amount of water vole habitat within the agreement area. This has been taken into consideration when scoring the prescription for water vole. For other linear features such as stone walls, a negative score has been assigned to the prescription (TG19A) as there is no benefit to water vole, but increases the available habitat for potential predators such as weasel and stoat. Special Projects In order to maximize the benefit to water voles, it may be possible to introduce a special project, which can go beyond the mandatory and optional requirements of Tir Gofal and the related management prescriptions. Special conservation projects (TG90A and 90B) have the potential to provide all of the resource requirements of the species and enable landowners over several agreements in a catchment to implement targeted water vole conservation projects, habitat creation and dispersal corridors, resulting in larger, more sustainable water vole populations, able to disperse freely across the landscape. Perhaps the greatest benefit of special projects is that they can help reduce the impacts of American mink predation by establishing catchment scale American mink control programmes, which would have enormous benefits to extant water vole populations on Tir Gofal agreements as well as in the wider countryside. 8.3.3.4 Summary of scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for mammals Matrices of delivery and certainty scores for Tir Gofal prescriptions and mammal focal species are given in


202

Table 49.


203

Table 49 The species-specific potential delivery scores (D) for mammal species by a) mandatory prescriptions, b) optional prescriptions, c) capital works and d) common combinations of prescriptions on the same land parcel within Tir Gofal. Mammal species are brown hare (BR), water vole (WV), noctule bat (NC), serotine bat (SE), common and soprano pipistrelle (PI), lesser horseshoe bat (LB).

a) Mandatory prescriptions Detail BR WV NC SE PI LB Broadleaved woodland Stock excluded 1 0 3 1 3 1 Light grazing 1 0 3 1 3 1 Existing grazing 1 0 3 1 3 1 Scrub 1 -2 0 1 1 1 Orchards S IMP 3 0 1 1 1 1 IMP 3 1 1 1 1 1 Parkland S IMP 3 1 3 1 3 1 IMP 3 1 3 1 3 1 Arable -2 1 3 1 3 1 Upland heath 1 1 1 0 1 0 Lowland coastal heath 0 1 1 0 1 0 U IMP acid grassland all categories 3 1 1 1 1 1 U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 3 1 1 1 1 1 Grazed 1 1 1 1 1 1 U IMP limestone grassland 3 1 1 1 1 1 S IMP grassland Haymeadow 3 1 1 1 1 1 Grazed 1 1 1 1 1 1 Marshy grassland 3 3 1 1 1 1 Bog Blanket 0 3 1 1 1 1 Raised 0 3 1 1 1 1 Reedbeds, fens and swamps 0 3 1 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 1 0 3 1 3 1 Light grazing 1 0 3 1 3 1 Existing grazing 1 0 3 1 3 1 Coastal habitat - scrub 1 0 0 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - lowland heath 0 1 0 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 3 1 0 0 0 0 Coastal habitat - U IMP neutral grass Haymeadow 3 1 1 1 1 1 Grazed 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 3 1 1 1 1 1 Grazed 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - marshy grass 3 3 1 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 0 3 1 1 1 1 Raised 0 3 1 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen and swamp 0 3 1 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - IMP grass 3 1 1 1 1 1 Coastal habitat - arable 3 1 1 1 1 1 Saltmarsh Short turf 1 0 0 0 0 0 Breeding birds 1 0 0 0 0 0 Existing ungrazed 1 0 0 1 1 1 Maritime cliff and slope grazed Grazed 3 0 0 0 0 0 Ungrazed 3 0 0 0 0 0 Sand dunes 3 0 0 0 0 0 IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


204

b) Optional prescriptions Detail BR WV NC SE PI LB

Hedgerow restoration 1 -2 1 1 1 1

Stone walls -2 -2 0 0 1 0

Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0 0

Earthbanks 0 1 0 0 0 0

Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Re-setting 0 0 0 0 0 0

New 0 0 0 0 0 0

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 1 1 1 1 1 1

Conversion from IMP grass 3 3 1 1 1 1

Winter stubble Conventional crop 1 1 0 0 0 0

US crop 1 1 0 0 0 0

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 1 1 1 1 1 1

US root crops - winter grazed 1 1 0 0 0 0

Rough grass margins 3 3 0 0 1 0

Uncropped fallow margins 3 1 0 0 1 0

Wildlife cover crop 3 1 0 0 1 0

Conversion of arable land Light grazing on IMP land -2 1 1 1 1 1

S IMP hay 0 1 1 1 1 1

S IMP grazed pasture 0 1 1 1 1 1

IMP coastal GM 0 1 1 1 1 1

Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 3 1 1 1 1 1

Other IMP land to hay 3 1 0 1 1 1

Parkland to pasture 3 1 0 1 1 1

GM lapwing 3 3 0 -2 1 -2

GM lapwing/wildfowl 3 1 0 -2 1 -2

Other IMP land to pasture 3 1 1 1 1 1

Buffer zone 3 1 1 1 1 1

Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 1 1 0 0 0 0

Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 1 0 1 1 1 1

Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 3 1 1 1 1 1

Acid/lime grazed 3 1 1 1 1 1

Acid/lime hay 3 1 1 1 1 1

Neutral hay 3 1 1 1 1 1

Increase water levels IMP conversion to S IMP 0 3 1 1 1 1

Marshy grass 0 3 1 1 1 1

IMP GM lapwing 0 3 1 1 1 1

Wildfowl 0 3 1 1 1 1

Heath/bog/swamp/reedbed 0 3 1 1 1 1

Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub On IMP grass 1 0 1 1 1 1

Natural regeneration 1 0 3 1 3 1

Restore plantations 0 0 3 1 3 1

Plant new woodland 1 0 3 1 3 1

Establish streamside corridors 3 3 1 1 1 1

Establish new reedbeds/swamps -2 3 1 1 1 1

Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass 1 0 0 -2 1 -2

On maritime land 1 0 0 0 1 0

On IMP land 1 1 0 -2 1 -2

Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass 0 -2 0 0 0 0

Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh 1 1 0 0 1 0

Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 3 0 0 0 0 0


205

8.3.4 Discussion of Tir Gofal delivery for focal mammal species Hedgerow restoration provides both potential conflict and synergy. They can provide food resources for hares, are used as corridors for movement by bats, and provide shelter for many mammals. However, they can act as corridors of movement for mammalian and avian predators, which can have deleterious effects on water voles and hares. Table 50 Summary table indicating potential management conflicts and synergies for mammals. Question mark indicates variable response (positive OR negative) depending on local factors, blank cells indicate no effect.

Prescription/management Bats Water vole Brown hare Potential synergy Reduced stocking levels ? Reduced use of agri-chemicals Increased diversity at holding scale Potential conflicts Increased arable ? Increased scrub/woodland ? ? Scrub clearance ? Increased standing water Hedgerows ? ? Stone walls Grazing marsh management for lapwing 8.3.4.1 Bats Due to a high degree of overlap in their resource requirements, most prescriptions with the potential to benefit one focal bat species have some benefit for the others. At least 62% of the Tir Gofal prescriptions are likely to benefit all four focal bats. Few potential management conflicts were identified among the focal bat species, and the greatest conflicts in delivering are likely to be across taxa (see synergies/conflicts table). In contrast to some of the other taxa the analysis of uptake data reveals that potential delivery of at least some benefit is very high for the focal bats (for example, the proportion of parcels likely to be of no consequence or detrimental ranges from 8.5% (pipistrelle species) to 18% (lesser horseshoe

c) Capital works Detail BR WV NC SE PI LB

Heather management Burning 0 1 0 0 0 0

Restoration 0 1 1 0 1 0

Pollarding 0 1 3 -2 3 -2

Ditch casting 0 1 1 1 1 1

Bracken control Mechanical 3 0 0 0 0 0

Chemical 3 0 0 0 0 0

Ground spray 3 0 0 0 0 0

Rhododendron control 3 0 0 0 0 0

Other invasive species control 3 3 0 0 0 0

Scrub clearance 3 1 0 -2 -2 -2

Creation or restoration of ponds 0 3 1 1 1 1

Bunds and sluices Soil 0 1 1 1 1 1

Timber 0 1 1 1 1 1

Water troughs 0 1 0 0 0 0

Piping for water supply 0 0 0 0 0 0

Barn owl nestboxes 0 -2 0 0 0 0

Other nestboxes 0 0 1 0 1 0

Trees and shrubs 1 0 3 1 3 1


206

bat/serotine). The relatively large uptake of prescriptions and land area likely to benefit the focal bats probably reflects the fact that the positive prescriptions relate to management of ubiquitous landscape features such as woodlands and hedgerows, rather than scarce or localised habitats. The key areas/distribution of bat focal species did not seem to influence the distribution of Tir Gofal agreements delivering beneficial managements and prescriptions. Analyses of data for the three species for which key areas were set based on distribution data showed similar delivery inside and outside key areas. However, the approach taken to setting key areas for bats was very basic and may have inaccurately estimated the number of agreements which fell within the range of the various species. The species data used are unlikely to reflect comprehensively the true distributions, many bats being under recorded in rural areas. A more sophisticated approach to the setting of key areas, such as using polygons to link 10km square distribution records may have linked more agreements to key areas. However, as potential delivery was high both within and outside key areas, this is not a matter for concern. There is an opportunity however, to make more use of species distribution data to ensure that the spatial arrangement of prescriptions optimises their potential delivery in key areas. For example, the prescriptions were strongly skewed toward the delivery of foraging habitat, although bats also require commuting and roosting habitats. A lack of roosting habitat could be a constraining factor in certain areas, particularly for those species more likely to roost in buildings or underground sites. Poor connections between roosting and foraging habitat would also act as a constraint. As well as ensuring the list of prescriptions includes the promotion of management/restoration of built/underground structures for their biodiversity value, acceptance of candidate agreements neighbouring human settlements (with roosting opportunities or known roosts) could be prioritised where of value for lesser horseshoe and serotine bat. The new CCW species package for lesser horseshoe may improve targeting of appropriate measures to key areas for lesser horseshoe. This assumes a more integrated approach to conservation management, an approach with potential value for species that operate at landscape scale. In the longer term, CCW plans to implement an integrated conservation programme “Landscapes for Lessers” for lesser horseshoe bats in both rural and urban areas throughout Wales. Such examples of landscape wide initiatives are relatively rare and of even greater importance for other priority species such as barbastelle bat (this species was not included in these analyses owing to the limited opportunity to test the degree of overlap of prescription locations against reliable species distribution data). There are relatively few examples of prescriptions that are likely to be detrimental to the focal species. These are mainly associated with land conversions that would remove commuting or foraging habitat such as scrub or exclusion of stock and loss of associated invertebrates. However, implementation of some prescriptions could be detrimental in the short term if done without taking account of the potential presence of bats. For example, tree managements such as pollarding could destroy or damage roosts and it is therefore appropriate to survey for the presence of bats prior to such activities (as per Forestry Commission Woodland guidelines). The ambiguity of scoring the impact of certain prescriptions such as changes in stocking should be noted (i.e. the likely impact of changed stock levels on vegetation and invertebrates cannot be understood fully without reference levels). This also highlights the limitation of conducting an analysis at prescription level for species which operate at landscape level – removing stock from one area of prescription land is unlikely to be detrimental, providing the stock and the associated prey invertebrates remain close by on the agreement land. The analysis did not permit any conclusion regarding the quality of the managements implemented or their specific location. Field surveys would be required to assess this and the direct impact of the scheme on populations. Summary implications for individual species: Lesser horseshoe bat and serotine bat The current Tir Gofal scheme has the potential to deliver some, but not all, the requirements for these species. The prescriptions focus primarily on the delivery of foraging habitat, and secondarily on the delivering of commuting habitat. None of the prescriptions are targeted to deliver roosting habitat because these species use built or underground structures for roosting and the scheme does not a


207

prescription for managing buildings for biodiversity purposes. The uptake of the beneficial prescriptions appears to have been good at agreement, area and parcel scales. Noctule bats and pipistrelle bats Noctule and pipistrelle bats appear to be relatively well served by Tir Gofal. The current Tir Gofal scheme has the potential to deliver all roosting, foraging and commuting requirements and the uptake of these prescriptions appears to have been good at agreement, area and parcel scales. The scheme does not include any prescriptions that were scored as damaging for noctules and uptake of prescriptions potentially damaging to pipistrelles has been very low. Modifications to the scheme suggested for lesser horseshoe bats and serotine bats, are also likely to benefit the pipistrelles, since these species also roost frequently in buildings. 8.3.4.2 brown hare Key area analysis No difference was observed between efficacy of prescription provision for hares within and outwith the brown hare key areas (Figure 7621). Because of the caveats surrounding the allocation of brown hare key areas, a number of approaches were tested.

Figure 76 For brown hare at the key area level, the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores, the percentage of land parcels within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores, and the percentage of agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores for land with the defined key area (pink) and land outside the key area on map.

Because brown hare key areas were not exhaustive (land might be designated as non key area due to lack of data rather than confirmed lack of hares), data are also presented for Ceredigion only, a county where considerable effort in brown hare recording means that areas outside ‘key area’ land are genuinely lacking in hares. However, these data also demonstrate that even within Ceredigion, there is still no difference in prescription application between hare key areas and non-key areas (Figure 77)

21 Note that the % agreements inside and outside key area both showed higher % maximum score than the national figures (Figure 42) because in this analysis, holdings straddling the key area boundary would be included in both sets of results, for ‘key area’ and ‘outside key area’.


208

Figure 77 For brown hare within Ceredigion, at the key area level, the percentage of the total prescription area within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores, the percentage of land parcels within Tir Gofal with the different prescription scores, and the percentage of agreements with land with different maximum prescription scores for land with the defined key area (pink) and land outside the key area on map.

In addition, the data were analysed to examine the geographical variation in the application of prescriptions that are specifically intended to benefit brown hare, and where brown hare is cited in Tir Gofal management plans (these being prescriptions 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30). These prescriptions combined form a total of 4.01% of all Tir Gofal land across Wales that falls inside brown hare key areas, and 5.13% of Tir Gofal land outside brown hare key areas, again showing no significant correlation between positive prescriptions and brown hare strongholds. National (all-Wales) scores The % area of prescription land and agreements within Tir Gofal that could potentially have a detrimental effect on hares is negligible (4.2.4.2), but is more significant in relation to proportion of land parcels. This is attributable to the inclusion of linear features such as stone walls, which offer no benefit to hares, but may do so to their predators, in the land parcel category. These are not identified in the results for land area, since agreement data allocates linear features a length rather than hectarage. Also, analysis of percentage of agreements throughout Wales, allocated the different maximum scores, shows a negligible % agreements with only detrimental prescriptions. Few agreements are made up only of linear features like stone walls (the most common of the 5 prescriptions allocated a negative score). In general, agreements score highly as the maximum score is used, and for brown hare, there was a high chance of an agreement scoring the maximum value of 3, with 40% of all Tir Gofal prescriptions having the potential to provide all the ecological requirements for brown hare. Vice-county analysis The analysis of delivery for brown hare at the vice-county level, expressed as percentage of land area, suggested that in general, south Wales showed the greatest % area likely to deliver at least some benefit (i.e. ‘some’ or ‘all’ requirements). vice-counties in north Wales had greater % land area with prescriptions of ‘no consequence’, and the most commonly occurring prescriptions contributing to this were TG13 (reedbeds, fens and swamps- the most commonly occurring prescription of no consequence in Caernarfon, Denbigh and Meirionnydd), TG12 (bog) and TG6 (lowland coastal heath). In general, these reflect the distribution of these habitats in Wales, and Tir Gofal management will not, and should not, have a major consequence for existing brown hare populations in these areas. In Radnor, the vice-county


209

with the greatest % prescription land potentially providing all the requirements for brown hare, the most commonly occurring prescriptions are TG7 (Unimproved acid grassland- large commons) and TG11 (Marsh grassland), habitats common in mid and south Wales. Agreement scores, being given as maximum score per holding, were relatively high. Because the chance of scoring the maximum score (on any one holding) may be influenced by the number of scoring parcels occurring within a holding, this could potentially affect the pattern across vice-counties where some upland counties, for example, could contain fewer farms with more parcels per farm, therefore potentially having a greater chance of maximum score. To eliminate this, a correlation was performed between the percentage of farms scoring maximum score per vice-county (ranges between 55% and 99% for brown hare) and the average number of scoring parcels per holding, in each vice-county (ranges between 30 in Pembrokeshire and 75 in Brecon). However, no significant correlation was returned (r = 0.42) The most interesting feature of the disaggregated land parcel data is the greater occurrence of negatively scoring parcels in north Wales (particularly Meirionnydd and Caernarfon, the two main counties forming Snowdonia National Park). These relate almost entirely to stone wall prescriptions, as stone walls (linear features) are recognised as parcels in their own right. In fact, some agreements in north Wales are almost exclusively linear features of this kind, and this explains the tiny but visible proportion of negatively scoring agreements in the same geographical area. Stone wall also account for the majority of negatively scoring parcels in Glamorgan. The fact that so many agreements score with the maximum score, when generally only around 25% of parcels score the maximum score, reflects the fact that there are some prescriptions that are very widespread across Wales that individually score very highly for brown hare, such as TG7 (unimproved acid grassland) that occurs at least once in a great many agreements. In general, Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver significant advantages for species with wide resource use and geographical range, and which are therefore likely to benefit from an increase in the diversity of land use at a farm scale. The brown hare is one such species. A relatively large number of the prescriptions score highly for hares, resulting in the observed large percentage of holdings that include at least some land providing all the ecological requirements for the species. As long as Tir Gofal continues to increase diversity in land use (and hence resource provision) at a holding level, brown hares are likely to benefit. Although Tir Gofal has the potential to deliver all of the critical resources for brown hare, no correlation was found between the distribution of key managements and the key areas identified by this report. This is perhaps unsurprising, since brown hare use so many different resources. In fact, depending on the diversity of resources, they can occupy a wide variety of habitats. This means that hares are not tied to any one (or few) particular habitats, and so are not correlating with the application of a small number of highly scoring, habitat-specific prescriptions, in the way you might expect with a more specialist species. Even when some Tir Gofal prescriptions are specifically intended to benefit hares (such as unsprayed cereal, rape and linseed crops- existing arable land or conversion from improved grassland (TG24) and retention of winter stubbles in cereal, rape and linseed crops (TG25)), there is no geographical correlation with brown hare key areas. This may be because even these prescriptions, already targeted at hares by Tir Gofal, are also widely applied to benefit additional species such as over-wintering birds. The lack of correlation, however, is not a cause for concern, given the high percentage of Tir Gofal land (by area) that stands to benefit hares, both inside and outside the key areas, and the widespread application of some of the more beneficial (grassland) prescriptions. Tir Gofal’s potential to benefit hares would appear to stand in its general approach to increasing diversity of land management within a farm rather than in regionally-targeted prescriptions. For brown hare, as a wide-ranging animal, failure to place Tir Gofal holdings in a local landscape context (beyond the holding in question) when assigning prescriptions may jeopardise their value for hares. Significant survey work in the field is required to determine the extent of these shortfalls on the ground.


210

It has been identified that in many cases habitats can be improved for hares by the detail of management, such as cutting crops from the centre of a field outwards, rather than from the outside in, trapping hares in the ‘danger zone’. Tir Gofal sometimes fails to be prescriptive enough about methods of management that could be as valuable as the actual land use category / prescription. 8.3.4.3 water vole Tir Gofal and other AES are well placed to play an essential role in reversing the decline in water vole populations across Wales, potentially providing the means to deliver appropriate management of wetland and riparian habitats, through a series of suitable prescriptions administered in those areas where they are most likely to be of benefit to the species. Although many anecdotal records for the species exist, it is likely that landowners and Tir Gofal Officers under record the species during initial site assessments, increasing the need for continued awareness and monitoring on Tir Gofal farms, if the scheme is to have a positive impact on water vole conservation. Water vole conservation, whether inside or outside Tir Gofal agreements, needs to be considered at the landscape level to have greatest potential for the species. In this sense, Tir Gofal is ideally placed to appropriately manage and create adequately sized wetland habitats that are themselves buffered and interlinked with other wetlands, creating continuous blocks of habitat suitable for dispersal and re-colonisation. However, in order for Tir Gofal to perform this function, the scheme has to be implemented to its full potential and in areas where it is most likely to benefit the species, which currently, as evidence suggests, is not being achieved. Although the scheme has the potential to deliver for water vole conservation in Wales a great deal more is required to reverse the declines seen in water vole populations over the past century. To a certain extent, these factors are being addressed under the Tir Gofal ‘Species Packages’ currently in production for water vole (Matthews. pers. comm.). The package aims to identify where water vole conservation through Tir Gofal is needed, inside and outside key areas (Figure 78), ensuring that water voles are catered for when developing agreements within these areas by promotion of beneficial prescriptions. Evidence from the analysis suggests that the marshy grassland (TG11) prescription is the most commonly occurring prescription in Tir Gofal, likely to provide all the resource requirements for water vole, consisting of some 12,877ha (42% including combinations). In this review, it must be remembered that the condition and status of marshy grassland habitat is unknown and may be degraded to such an extent that it is unsuitable to support the species. However, it will still be subject to the same prescription regardless and have therefore been scored with the maximum score. Crucial to water vole conservation is the identification of water vole field signs and habitat prior to an agreement, which can determine the focus of the prescriptions for the benefit of the species. Table 51 below illustrates the positive work that can be undertaken for water when the species is identified at an early stage.


211

Table 51 Case Study Pant Phylip Farm water vole conservation through Tir Gofal

Case Study: Potential Benefits of Tir Gofal for Water Vole Pant Phylip Farm (Reference Number: NW/04/1125) is situated adjacent to the Mawdach estuary in Gwynedd and comprises of approximately 160ha of pastoral agriculture, of which 25ha ofcoastal grazing marsh and floodplain grassland (TG14A, TG14.2, TG14.10B and TG14.11) adjacent to the Abermawdach SSSI have received additional attention due to the presence of water vole,identified during initial consultation (2001) with CCW. As water voles were identified at an early stage, Tir Gofal Project Officers and the landowner, through liaison with CCW, have been able to implement a series of modified prescriptions for thebenefit of the species, which include, no more than 50% of ditches to be cast during the lifetime of the agreement and vegetation to be cut outside of the water vole breeding season. In addition tothis, all ditches, (where the majority of water vole field signs were found) have been fenced from livestock, no less than 1.5m (wider in some areas) away from the edge of the bank and managed in such a way as to promote a mosaic of tall grasses and riparian vegetation, interspersed withpatches of scrub (every 20-50m). A site visit undertaken by WTW in March 2008, revealed that despite the development of suitable water vole habitat along the ditch network, the area in general has been colonised by Americanmink, which could be detrimental to the water vole population and potentially undermininghabitat enhancement works, thus demonstrating the importance of mink control programmes for water vole conservation. WTW advised on implementing a mink control programme, which can be part funded (80%)under Tir Gofal Special Projects (TG90A and TG90B) and efforts are currently underway to establish such a control programme on the farm. In addition, water vole and American minksurveys and training have been arranged for spring 2008 by WTW, which will assess the current status of the water vole population and make further recommendations for the species. Although it is acknowledged that more can be done on the farm for the benefit of water vole, the case study shows the potential benefits to the species when identified at an early stage, where prescriptions can be implemented and modified accordingly. Widely distributed species like the water vole, which can persist in relatively small metapopulations, and found in a multitude of optimal and sub-optimal habitats are often difficult to detect in the field, especially outside the breeding season. Without adequate training and experience, many water vole field signs and potential habitats may go undetected and therefore their specific resource requirements not met, or detrimental management introduced.

Despite the very poor uptake of the most suitable prescriptions for water vole, Tir Gofal actually consists of very few prescriptions that are potentially detrimental to the species, most noticeably barn owl nest boxes (TG61), stonewalls (TG19A) and scrub (TG2). For the first two prescriptions, these have scored negatively due to their ability to provide habitat for predatory species such as barn owl, stoats and weasels. However, it must be remembered that these are native species, forming an integral part of water vole ecology in Wales. Despite this caveat, when considering the amount of suitable predator habitat created by stonewalls (291,479.2km), there may be indirect conflicts with water vole conservation, especially in areas where water voles persist at small or isolated populations, making them more susceptible to predation. At a vice-county level Merionethshire has over half (165,874.3km) the national (all-Wales) length of the stonewall prescription, which further explains the relatively high number of agreements scoring a maximum score of -2 (18.9%), higher than any other vice-county.


212

On a positive note, the prescription scrub (TG2) was scored negatively because if unmanaged, scrub can be detrimental to a water vole habitat as well as provide safe havens for predator species. However, despite this, if managed appropriately over the long-term, scrub can be a vital resource for water voles, providing year round foraging and sheltering opportunities. With this in mind, many areas within Tir Gofal agreements implementing the prescription may in fact be enhancing the water vole habitat, in the short-term, but without continued control, the habitat is likely to be made unsuitable in the long-term. This conflict highlights some of the complications in implementing water vole conservation projects. For water vole, conflicts between other focal species (mammals) have been identified (Table 50). However, for water vole in particular, conflicts of conservation interest can occur with birds of prey, in particular barn owl and kestrel. The provision for, avian predators to water vole, including a specific Tir Gofal management prescription for barn owl nest boxes (TG61), could potentially increase rates of predation. The Special Projects (TG90A and TG90B) have been scored positively for water vole as they can potentially offer a means of controlling American mink as part of a Tir Gofal agreement, which would undoubtedly prove beneficial for the species. In total approximately 8% of agreements providing all the resource requirements for water vole comprise of a Special Project prescription. However, of the 205 agreements in Wales that consist of the Special project prescriptions, very few are currently focused on water vole conservation and none are implementing American mink control, which should be taken into consideration when assessing the prescriptions current delivery for water vole (Figure 44). Although currently not used in Wales, Tir Gofal has the capacity to deliver American mink control on a catchment scale, which would have enormous benefits to water vole especially if delivered in key areas. General Discussion For water voles, the general environmental objectives of Tir Gofal, which aim to promote a more extensive and diverse agricultural system, has the potential to benefit the species in a number of ways. Primarily this would be through provision of the resource requirements needed for the species through wetland habitat creation and management, but also through the reduction in LSU, and the conversion of improved to semi-improved and unimproved grasslands, encouraging water vole dispersal and colonisation throughout the catchment. It is clear from the current study that habitat creation prescriptions with direct benefit to water vole have been insufficiently implemented in Wales. In addition, it is important to remember that the condition and status of a particular habitat before entering into an agreement is unknown and therefore cannot be assessed for its potential to support water vole. An example of this is marshy grassland, which has the potential to deliver all of the species resource requirements, but only when in good condition. However, many marshy grassland habitats in Wales are in a poor condition and therefore unlikely to support the species, but would still be subject to the same management prescription (TG11). As the full extent of habitat condition in Wales is unknown, the assumption was made that prescriptions applying to suitable water vole habitats (marshy grassland, reedbeds, bogs and streamside corridors etc) was in a condition acceptable to support the species and that the prescription was applied to the letter of the guidelines, and have been scored as such. What is apparent is the poor uptake of prescriptions that aim to create and establish optimum water vole habitat in Wales, such as streamside corridors (TG38), new reedbeds/swamps (TG39) and the creation and restoration of ponds (TG56). Despite the obvious benefits to water voles of streamside corridors, the prescription only accounts for a total of 235.7ha of land within Tir Gofal throughout Wales. At the vice-county level, Ceredigion has incorporated the greatest amount of streamside corridor (40.4ha), but this is negligible when compared to the number of all other prescriptions scoring a maximum of 3 in the vice-county, just 0.9%. Ceredigion is one of the most important counties in Wales for water voles, which has been recognised by the designation of four regional water vole key areas, covering approximately 30% of the county. A similar situation can be seen in Anglesey, perhaps the last refuge for water vole in Wales, where the streamside corridor prescription only represents 1.5ha of Tir Gofal land in the county, just 0.9%


213

of the total number of prescriptions scoring 3. More worryingly is the poor uptake of creation of new reedbeds/swamps (TG39) and newly created/restored ponds (TG56), which cover a total area Tir Gofal land in Wales of just 0.2ha, and 21.6ha respectively. However, despite the very poor uptake of the most suitable prescriptions for water vole, Tir Gofal actually consists of very few prescriptions that are potentially detrimental to the species, most noticeably barn owl nest boxes (TG61), stonewalls (TG19A) and scrub (TG2). For the first two prescriptions, these have scored negatively due to their ability to provide habitat for predatory species such as barn owl, stoats and weasels. However, it must be remembered that these are native species, forming an integral part of water vole ecology in Wales. Despite this caveat, when considering the amount of suitable predator habitat created by stonewalls (291,479.2km), there may be indirect conflicts with water vole conservation, especially in areas where water voles persist at small or isolated populations, making them more susceptible to predation. At a vice-county level Merionethshire has over half (165,874.3km) the national (all-Wales) length of the stonewall prescription, which further explains the relatively high number of agreements scoring a maximum score of -2 (18.9%), higher than any other vice-county. Although there appears to be a good provision for water vole in Tir Gofal, with 22 prescriptions having the potential of delivering all the resource requirements, there is a poor uptake of those prescriptions that aim to create new optimum water vole habitat such as streamside corridors (TG38), new reedbed/swamp (TG38) and ponds (TG56). What is evident is the overwhelming uptake of marshy grassland (TG11) prescriptions and related combinations, which equate to almost half the land area in Tir Gofal likely to provide all resource requirements for water vole. No correlation between the distribution of prescriptions and key areas was found to suggest that prescriptions likely to provide all of the resource requirements for the species are being delivered more in areas where they would have the most benefit i.e. key areas. This, to a certain extent is to be expected with a widely distributed mammal species, able to frequent wetland and riparian habitats in pastoral and arable landscapes, coupled with the extensive and widely distributed use of the marshy grassland prescription in Wales. The following recommendations are made for water vole in the light of undertaking this review:

• Greater emphasis is needed on the creation of water vole habitats, such as streamside corridors, reedbeds and ponds.

• More targeting of beneficial water vole prescriptions is needed in key areas, which should not

only extend to identified regional key areas, but also to areas where water voles are known to be present or have been recorded in recent years.

• Wetland habitat quality needs to be assessed and graded prior to the development of a Tir Gofal

agreement. This will distinguish between habitats in an already suitable condition to support water vole from degraded wetland habitats, which require greater attention and conservation effort. Once assessed, additional and/or more specific prescriptions can be introduced to the agreement to ensure that the habitat reaches a condition able to support the species and other wetland flora and fauna.

• More training for landowners and Tir Gofal Officers is essential for future water vole

conservation in Wales, not only by identifying the species and habitats prior to an agreement but also to establish a long-term monitoring programme, assessing water vole reaction to prescriptions through monitoring the rates of colonisation (or recovery) within an agreement area. This is important in developing new prescriptions for water vole and enhancing the schemes ability to provide for the species’ ecological requirements.

• At a catchment level, Tir Gofal has the potential to provide further for water vole by introducing

mink control programmes under the special project prescriptions (TG90A and TG90B). Although


214

mink control can already be considered as part of an agreement, evidence suggests that it is very rarely used. Increased emphasis of special projects for mink control is needed, especially in areas supporting water vole. American mink control, not only has the potential to benefit water vole but also other native wildlife as well as fisheries, wildfowl and game.

• The general requirement in Tir Gofal of a 1m buffer strip for riparian corridors (TG33), although

providing some benefit to water vole does not go far enough to provide all the resource requirements of the species. To provide for water vole a greater width of buffer zone (2-3m) around wetland and riparian habitats should be made mandatory.

• If wider buffer zones were made mandatory or there was a greater uptake of the streamside

corridor prescription (TG38) periodic grazing could be introduced to control scrub and maintain a structurally and ecologically diverse riparian corridor for the benefit of water vole, however this should only be undertaken when necessary, with advice from a water vole ecologist.

• Analysis shows that a number of detrimental parcels currently in Tir Gofal, consist of the barn

owl (Tyto alba) nest box prescription (TG61), which have the potential to encourage this avian predator into water vole habitat, to the detriment of the species. It is recommended that the prescription not be used in areas that support very small isolated populations of water vole, more susceptible to predation.

• Where possible, management prescriptions for creation and restoration of stone walls (19A)

should be located away from suitable water vole habitat as they provide ideal habitat for native predators such as weasel and stoat.

Figure 78 Areas in Wales (shaded red) targeted as part of the Tir Gofal species package for water vole (CCW, in prep).


215

8.4 Appendix 4: Birds 8.4.1 Distribution, populations and key areas 8.4.1.1 Distribution 8.4.1.1.1 black grouse Black grouse are now restricted to upland areas of north Wales, typically associated with heather moorland and conifer woodland (Calladine 2002; Lovegrove et al. 1994). 8.4.1.1.2 grey partridge Grey partridge are now confined to parts of Wales with mixed farmland (Green et al. 2007; Lovegrove et al. 1994). 8.4.1.1.3 lapwing Lapwings are now very localised in Wales. They are typically associated with lowland wet grassland, rough grazing and areas of arable farming (Lovegrove et al. 1994; Shrubb 2007). 8.4.1.1.4 curlew Curlews are now largely restricted to upland areas of north and mid Wales, with isolated populations in some lowland districts e.g. Skomer island, Llŷn, Dee floodplain). They are typically associated with wet grassland, rough grazing and moorland (Lovegrove et al. 1994). 8.4.1.1.5 turtle dove Turtle doves are now restricted to one small area in north-east Wales (R. Thorpe pers comm.). A small breeding population was present in Monmouthshire until 2005 (Green et al. 2007). 8.4.1.1.6 chough In Wales, choughs are largely restricted to coastal areas of north and west Wales, and the mountains of northern Snowdonia, although there has been some expansion eastwards along the south coast. 8.4.1.1.7 tree sparrow Tree sparrows are localised in Wales, with a bias to the southeast. They are typically associated with river valleys, wet features e.g. ditches and ponds and areas of arable farming (Lovegrove et al. 1994). 8.4.1.1.8 yellowhammer Yellowhammers are widely distributed across Wales. They are typically associated with mixed farming and particularly with ffridd and coastal heath (Fuller et al. 2006; Lovegrove et al. 1994).

8.4.1.1.9 corn bunting Corn buntings are now restricted to a small part of northeast Wales close to the border with Shropshire (Green et al. 2007; Green and Pritchard 2006; J. Dyda pers. comm.). 8.4.1.2 Key areas for birds Key areas have been produced for the nine species considered here as part of the UK Bird Conservation Targeting Project22 (Figure 79). They were produced using data collated from a range of sources including county bird reports, the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), and species-specific surveys. Data from a six-year period (1999-2005) were used, with exceptions made for the inclusion of data from 1997/98 and 2006/07 either where this data significantly adds to the dataset e.g. national surveys had been undertaken, or it is known that data from 1999-2005 are deficient.

22 The Bird Conservation Targeting Project has been developed to target management and resources towards important sites for scarce and declining farmland and woodland birds. Records are collected from a wide range of sources, including individual birdwatchers, county bird clubs and national surveys (RSPB 2007).


216

In all cases the sites on which the key area is based is a 1 km square, to avoid any potential issues concerning disclosure of sensitive sites at a six-figure grid reference level, and due to the fact that many records are not available at a 100m resolution. The method varies between species to account for differences in status and ecology (Table 52); the size of buffer is selected according to aspects of the species ecology e.g. natal dispersal distance or foraging distance. However for species where these distances are greater than 10km e.g. curlew, turtle dove, corn bunting a 5km radius has been selected to give greater focus to management close to breeding area. Table 52 Methods used to create bird key areas.

Species Unit Buffer Key Area black grouse

Lekking male 1.5km Nationally important1 numbers (2+) within conjoint buffers.

grey partridge All records 3km All lapwing All records from probable

breeding sites Apr-Jun 2km 7+ pairs2 within conjoint buffers

curlew All records from probable breeding sites Apr - Jun

5km 4+ pairs3 within a site, 5km buffer applied.

turtle dove All records of singing / displaying males and other records with at least two sightings at least 10 days apart.

5km All

chough All records Breeding 2km. Non-breeding 6km

Nationally important i.e. 3+ pairs <2km apart, or by a 6km buffer from roosting or feeding site with 13+ birds

tree sparrow All records. Data converted to individuals

5km Top 10% sites (12+ birds), 5km buffer applied, further 5km buffer applied to additional sites falling within the initial buffer to form key area

yellowhammer All records. Data converted to individuals

5km Top 10% sites (8+ birds), 5km buffer applied, further 5km buffer applied to additional sites falling within the initial buffer to form key area

corn bunting All records 5km All

1 Nationally important = 1% or more of Welsh population 2 Despite a repeat of the 1993 wader survey in 2006 it was not possible to obtain an estimate of the current lapwing population in Wales. A survey of lapwing in 1998 indicated 1700 pairs with 17 pairs forming 1% of the Welsh population. Extrapolation from available data indicates that the current population is likely to be as low as 600 pairs. 3 Although a nationally important population of curlews is 11 pairs, no sites reached this threshold. Based on information with RSPB/CCW database a figure of four pairs was selected. This highlights all known concentrations of this species.


217

Figure 79 Key areas for the nine bird species.

8.4.2 Literature review of resource requirements of focal bird species Vickery et al (2004) summarised resource requirements of birds whose population trends are used for the UK Farmland Bird Indicator; this has been used as the basis for this review. Black grouse, curlew and chough have been added to the list of species considered and amendments have been made to reflect the situation in Wales, and to reflect recent research. The requirements for the nine species considered here are presented in Table 53.


218

N SF WF N SF WF N SF N SF N SF N SF WF N SF WF N SF WF N SF WFHabitatCliffsBuildingsTree HolesTreesShrubsHedgesDamp/aquatic habitatsWoodlandHeathlandScrublandParks/GardensGrasslandMarginsCereal cropsBroad-leaved cropsSet-aside/fallowStubbleFoodTrees seeds/fruitGrainWeed SeedsRapeCrop foliageFoliageSoil invertsOther inverts

CBTD CF TS Y.BK P. LA CU

Table 53 Resource requirements for the nine bird species in different life-stages: N = nest sites, SF = summer food and WF = winter food (after Vickery et al. 2004). The winter food requirements of lapwing (LA), curlew (CU) and turtle dove (TD) are not considered, as these species are non-resident. Thus, AES are only likely to benefit breeding season resources. Black cells = strong positive association. Grey cells = weaker positive association. Blank cells indicate no association. BK = black grouse, P. = grey partridge, CF = chough, TS = tree sparrow, Y. = yellowhammer and CB = corn bunting.

In addition to summarising resource requirements for farmland birds, Vickery et al (2004) presented an assessment of the most likely demographic mechanisms of population decline for these species; this is presented below (Table 54). Black grouse, curlew and chough have been added and amendments have been to reflect recent research and the situation in Wales.


219

Table 54 Probable limiting factors and management options for the nine focal bird species (from Vickery et al. 2004)24

Species Probable most limiting factor25

Management options26

Probable next most limiting factor27

Management options

black grouse Productivity Heather management

Winter survival Heather management

Aquatic habitats grey partridge Productivity Spray control Winter survival Wild bird cover Field margins Arable pockets Set-aside fallows Stubble Wild bird cover Set-aside stubbles Hedges Spray control lapwing Productivity Arable pockets Winter survival Reduced

ploughing Pastoral pockets Pastoral pockets Set-aside fallows Sward-height

control Sward-height

control

Spring-sowing Aquatic habitats Spray control curlew Productivity Sward-height

control

Aquatic habitats turtle dove Productivity Set-aside fallows Spray control Scrub creation Hedges Field margins Wild bird cover chough Winter survival Sward-height

control Productivity Sward-height

control Arable pockets

24 Bold=high confidence of an effect; non-bold: an effect is possible but not certain. In all cases it is presumed that options are produced to tight prescriptions giving optimum benefit to birds e.g., stubbles are weed-rich. The options are often generic terms covering a range of different prescriptions, which will vary by farming landscape, region and target. 25 Demographic rate considered to be currently limiting population size. These have been generalised into productivity (number of breeding attempts or fledglings per attempt) and non-breeding (over-winter survival) effects. 26 Explanatory notes for management options: Aquatic habitats – wet ditches, farm ponds and other wet areas. Spray controls – conservation headlands and over winter stubble followed by low input cereal. Arable pockets – areas of arable land within regions previously entirely pastoral, created by the conversion of land management, e.g. silage fields to fodder crops. Field margins – also includes beetle banks. 27 The demographic factor considered to be the next likely to limit population growth if the currently limiting factor was relieved.


220

Table 54 cont. Species Probable most

limiting factor28 Management options29

Probable next most limiting factor30

Management options

tree sparrow Winter survival Stubble Productivity Hedgerow trees Set-aside stubbles Nestboxes Supplementary

feeding Aquatic habitats

Wild bird cover Set-aside fallows Arable pockets Spray control Spray control Hedges Field margins yellowhammer Winter survival Stubble Productivity Hedges Set-aside stubbles Field margins Supplementary

feeding Arable pockets

Wild bird cover Ditches Arable pockets Aquatic habitats Spray control Scrub Grassland

extensification

corn bunting31 Winter survival Stubble Productivity Spray control Set-aside stubbles Field margins Supplementary

feeding Spring cereals

Arable pockets Grassland extensification

Wild bird cover Arable pockets Spray control Pastoral pockets Grassland

extensification

8.4.3 Scoring of Tir Gofal prescriptions for birds It is now widely recognized within farmland bird research that there are three life-stages that are important for birds; nest sites, breeding season food and winter food and this is often termed “the Big 3” (Vickery et al. 2004). Thus, for each bird species, each prescription was scored for potential delivery of resources for each life stage and, based on published sources, whether there is a weak or strong evidence base (evidence score) of delivery. The life stage scores combine to allow a quantitative assessment of delivery and evidence score that were derived from the number of times a life stage scored two (strong scientific evidence). Measures for delivery and evidence were then combined to create a six point-scale.

28 Demographic rate considered to be currently limiting population size. These have been generalised into productivity (number of breeding attempts or fledglings per attempt) and non-breeding (over-winter survival) effects. 29 Explanatory notes for management options: Aquatic habitats – wet ditches, farm ponds and other wet areas. Spray controls – conservation headlands and over winter stubble followed by low input cereal. Arable pockets – areas of arable land within regions previously entirely pastoral, created by the conversion of land management, e.g. silage fields to fodder crops. Field margins – also includes beetle banks. 30 The demographic factor considered to be the next likely to limit population growth if the currently limiting factor was relieved. 31 It is not known whether productivity or winter survival is currently limiting corn bunting population size in Britain.


221

Thus, an option that scores 1:1 for evidence and delivery respectively means there is strong evidence that the prescription will potentially deliver some of the resource requirements for that species. In contrast, an option which scores 1:3, means there is weak evidence that the prescription will potentially deliver all of the resource requirement for that species. Example sores for two hypothetical bird species, a resident and non-resident, are given in Table 55. Table 55 Six-point scoring systems (ranked from best to worst score), used for bird species only, which combines the evidence and delivery scores. N = nest sites, S = summer food, W = winter food.

Matrices of delivery and certainty scores for Tir Gofal prescriptions and bird focal species are given in Table 56.

Spp. Ecology N S W Delivery Evidence Combined evidence/delivery interpretationResident -2 0 0 -2 na potential to be detrimental

0 -2 0 -2 na potential to be detrimental0 -2 -2 -2 na potential to be detrimental0 0 0 0 na No consequence: neither positive or negative potential delivery1 1 0 1 0 Weak evidence for potential delivery of some resources0 2 0 1 1 Strong evidence for potential delivery of some resources2 2 0 1 2 Strong evidence for potential delivery of some resources1 1 1 3 0 Weak evidence for potential delivery of all resources1 2 1 3 1 Weak evidence for potential delivery of all resources1 2 2 3 2 Strong evidence for potential delivery of all resources2 2 2 3 3 Strong evidence for potential delivery of all resources

Non-resident -2 0 -2 na potential to be detrimental0 0 0 na No consequence: neither positive or negative potential delivery0 1 1 0 Weak evidence for potential delivery of some resources2 0 1 1 Strong evidence for potential delivery of some resources1 1 3 0 Weak evidence for potential delivery of all resources1 2 3 1 Weak evidence for potential delivery of all resources2 2 3 2 Strong evidence for potential delivery of all resources

2 strong potential of the prescription delivering resources

1 weak potential or insufficient evidence of the prescription delivering resources

0 no potential of the prescription delivering resources

-1 weak potential of a negative effect

-2 strong potential of a negative effect


222

Table 56 The species-specific potential delivery scores (D) for bird species by a) mandatory prescriptions, b) optional prescriptions, c) capital works and d) common combinations of prescriptions on the same land parcel within Tir Gofal. black grouse (BK), grey partridge (P.), lapwing (LA), curlew (CU), turtle dove (TD), chough (CF), tree sparrow (TS), yellowhammer (Y.), corn bunting (CB).

BK P. LA CU TD CF TS Y. CB

a) Mandatory prescriptions Detail ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED EDBroadleaved woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0

Light grazing 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0

Scrub 03 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 0Orchards S IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Parkland S IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0

IMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0Arable 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0

Upland heath 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0Lowland coastal heath 0 0 03 0 0 01 0 03 0U IMP acid grassland all categories 01 01 01 03 0 01 01 01 11U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow 01 03 -2 13 01 01 01 01 13

Grazed 01 01 03 03 0 01 01 01 11U IMP limestone grassland 01 01 01 03 0 01 01 01 11Semi-improved grassland Haymeadow 01 03 -2 13 01 01 01 01 13

Grazed 01 01 03 03 0 01 01 01 11Marshy grassland 11 0 03 13 0 0 11 0 0Bog Blanket 23 0 03 13 0 0 0 0 0

Raised 23 0 03 13 0 0 0 0 0Reedbeds, fens and swamps 11 0 03 03 0 0 11 0 0Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0

Light grazing 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0Existing grazing 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0

Coastal habitat - scrub 03 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0Coastal habitat - lowland heath 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 01 0Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass 01 01 01 03 0 01 01 01 11Coastal habitat - U IMP neuitral grass Haymeadow 01 03 0 13 01 01 01 01 13

Grazed 01 01 01 03 0 01 01 01 11Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow 01 03 0 13 01 01 01 01 13

Grazed 01 01 03 03 0 01 01 01 11Coastal habitat - marshy grass 11 0 03 13 0 0 01 0 0Coastal habitat - bog Blanket 23 0 03 13 0 0 0 0 0

Raised 23 0 03 13 0 0 0 0 0swamp 11 0 03 03 0 0 01 0 0Coastal habitat - IMP grass 0 0 03 01 0 01 0 0 0Coastal habitat - arable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Saltmarsh Short turf 0 0 03 01 0 0 0 0 0

Breeding birds 0 0 03 01 0 0 0 0 0ungrazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0Ungrazed 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0

Sand dunes 0 03 0 0 0 01 0 0 0IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing marsh


223


b) Optional prescriptions Detail ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED EDHedgerow restoration 0 01 0 0 01 0 01 01 0Stone walls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Stone faced earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0Earthbanks 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0Slate fences Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Re-setting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0New 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable 0 11 01 0 11 0 11 11 11grass 0 11 01 0 11 0 11 11 11

Winter stubble Conventional crop 0 01 0 0 0 01 01 01 01US crop 0 11 0 0 0 01 11 11 11

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 21US root crops - winter grazed 0 11 -2 0 01 0 11 11 11Rough grass margins 0 21 01 0 0 0 11 23 23Uncropped fallow margins 0 01 01 0 11 0 21 01 01Wildlife cover crop 0 13 0 0 11 0 11 11 13Conversion of arable land Light grazing on IMP land 0 -2 01 01 -2 01 -2 -2 -2

S IMP hay 01 -2 -2 03 01 01 -2 -2 -2S IMP grazed pasture 0 -2 01 01 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2IMP coastal GM 0 -2 03 01 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0Other IMP land to hay 01 03 -2 13 01 01 01 01 03Parkland to pasture 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0GM lapwing 0 0 03 01 0 0 0 0 0GM lapwing/wildfowl 0 0 03 01 0 0 0 0 0Other IMP land to pasture 01 03 0 03 01 01 01 01 01

Buffer zone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing 0 0 03 01 0 0 0 0 0Manage IMP grass - wildfowl 0 0 01 03 0 0 0 0 0Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed 01 01 01 03 0 01 01 01 11

Acid/lime grazed 01 01 01 03 0 01 01 01 11Acid/lime hay 01 03 -2 03 01 01 01 01 13Neutral hay 01 03 -2 13 01 01 01 01 13

Increase water levels IMP conversion to S IMP 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0Marshy grass 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0IMP GM lapwing 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0Wildfowl 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0d 11 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0

scrub On IMP grass 01 -2 -2 -2 01 -2 01 21 -2Natural regeneration 03 -2 -2 -2 01 -2 01 -2 -2Restore plantations 03 0 0 0 01 0 0 21 0Plant new woodland 03 -2 -2 -2 01 -2 01 -2 -2

Establish streamside corridors 0 -2 -2 -2 0 0 01 13 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass 23 0 -2 -2 0 -2 0 0 0

On maritime land 0 0 -2 -2 0 -2 0 0 0On IMP land 23 0 -2 -2 0 -2 0 0 0

Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass 0 0 03 01 0 0 0 0 0Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0Establish new sand dunes On IMP land 0 03 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0


224

8.4.4 Discussion of Tir Gofal delivery for focal bird species For an AES to deliver for priority species it must offer prescriptions that address the key resource requirements and limiting factors. Tir Gofal varies quite widely in its provision, in terms of the availability of prescriptions, for the seven bird species considered here. For black grouse, yellowhammer and corn bunting the provision within the scheme is very good, with prescriptions available that have strong evidence of delivering their year-round requirements, together with further prescriptions that are potentially beneficial for delivery of some requirements. For grey partridge, turtle dove and tree sparrow the provision within the scheme is good with prescriptions available that have a high likelihood of delivering some of their year-round requirements, a combination of which have the potential to deliver year-round. However, for lapwing, curlew and chough the provision within the scheme is poor with no prescriptions available with a high likelihood of delivery and consequently, the potential for the scheme to deliver for these three species is very limited. The population trends of the first two species give some indication of the lack of success of any wider countryside measures, such as AES. Populations of lapwing and curlew in Wales have undergone steep declines in recent years such that lapwings are now almost considered


c) Capital works Detail ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED EDHeather management Burning 21 0 01 01 0 01 0 0 0

Restoration 23 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0Pollarding 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0Ditch casting 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0Bracken control Mechanical 03 0 0 0 0 01 0 -2 0

Chemical 03 0 0 0 0 01 0 -2 0spray 03 0 0 0 0 01 0 -2 0

Rhododendron control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other invasive species control 03 0 23 03 0 0 0 0 0Scrub clearance 03 0 03 03 -2 01 0 -2 0ponds 0 0 01 01 0 0 11 0 0Bunds and sluices Soil 01 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0

Timber 01 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0Water troughs 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0Piping for water supply 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0Barn owl nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other nestboxes 0 0 0 0 0 01 11 0 0Trees and shrubs 13 -2 -2 -2 01 -2 01 21 -2

d) BK P L CU TD CF TS Y CBPrescription combinations ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED EDU IMP acid grass with establish heathland vegetation 23 01 0 01 0 0 01 01 11IMP land with woodland creation options 03 -2 -2 -2 01 -2 01 -2 -2S IMP haymeadow with restoration to U IMP haymeadow 01 01 -2 13 01 01 01 01 13IMP land with US cereal, rape or linseed followed by winter stubble 0 23 01 0 11 01 21 21 23S IMP pasture with restoration to U IMP pasture 01 01 03 03 0 01 01 01 11S IMP grassland with restoration to U IMP grassland 01 03 -2 13 01 01 01 01 13Marshy grassland with increased water levels 11 0 03 13 0 0 11 0 0S IMP grassland with restoration to U IMP grassland (acid/lime hay) 01 03 -2 03 01 01 01 01 13S IMP pasture with restoration to U IMP pasture (acid/lime) 01 01 03 03 0 01 01 01 11S IMP haymeadow with restoration to U IMP haymeadow (acid/lime) 01 03 -2 13 01 01 01 01 13Improved coastal GM with conversion to S IMP GM (Lapwing) 0 0 03 01 0 01 0 0 0Improved coastal GM with conversion to S IMP GM (Lapwing/wildfowl) 0 0 03 01 0 01 0 0 0with increased water levels winter and spring


225

birds of nature reserves (having disappeared from much of the wider countryside) and curlews declined by 81% 1993-2006. On the contrary, chough have been steadily increasing in Wales in recent years. This study indicates that Tir Gofal is unlikely to have played much of a role in this, and as a high proportion of choughs are found on designated sites, or land under conservation organization ownership e.g. The National Trust or RSPB other mechanisms to drive favourable management are available. Furthermore, several high-profile European-funded projects have been underway on the Welsh coast with management for chough a key objective. For some species (grey partridge, turtle dove, tree sparrow, yellowhammer and corn bunting) although the provision within in the scheme is adequate, it increases when certain prescriptions are combined, particularly when on one parcel of land. For example, TG24 Unsprayed cereal can provide summer food for grey partridge, and when combined with TG25 Winter stubbles can provide winter feeding habitat, accounting for two of the three elements of their year-round requirements on one land parcel. The value of this land parcel can be further enhanced if TG28 Rough grass margins were located on the margins, adding nesting habitat and so ensuring strong potential of delivering the species year-round requirements on one land parcel, particularly important for a species such as grey partridge which has such limited seasonal and natal dispersal distances. For species that require scrub or hedges for nesting, the combination of prescriptions within agreements (in particular those including hedgerow restoration prescriptions in combination with options providing food) are important in driving delivery at the agreement level. A further consideration is the availability of prescriptions that are potentially damaging for focal bird species. There are potentially damaging prescriptions for all except black grouse. This suggests that the scheme has the potential to be detrimental to priority species. In practice, this will come down to their proximity to a species key resources e.g. tree planting adjacent to species that require open habitats, e.g. lapwing and curlew, will have a high potential of being detrimental; as will the conversion of arable to pasture for species dependent on arable habitats, e.g. grey partridge and corn bunting. The uptake of potentially beneficial prescriptions for each species varies. The results for black grouse stand out for two reasons: the apparently high uptake of the most beneficial prescriptions (in terms of actual area and as a percentage of the key area), and the significantly greater area of these within the key area. The latter suggests some degree of focussing of resources for black grouse into their key areas. This may be ‘targeting by default’, due to the association of black grouse with upland habitats (as suggested by the vice-county analysis), the fact that some key upland prescriptions score highly for black grouse, and that these same prescriptions are mandatory for scheme entrants. The results for some other species also suggest a degree of focussing of resources into key areas, notably grey partridge, turtle dove and corn bunting, and this is also likely to be due to the strong association of these species with arable farming. For turtle dove and corn bunting, two species on the verge of extinction in Wales, the number of agreements and quantities of potentially beneficial prescriptions within the key areas are so low that currently Tir Gofal is likely to deliver little to help the retention of these as Welsh species. There is little evidence of any focussing of resources for either tree sparrow or yellowhammer. Furthermore, although there is uptake of potentially beneficial prescriptions for these granivorous passerines, this is at a very low level as a proportion of the key area. Two further factors are fundamental for a scheme to deliver for priority species; the quantity and the quality of the prescriptions implemented on the ground. For most species, there is very little evidence with regard to the quantity issue. However, scientifically assessed information is available for some of the species considered here. Grey partridge is one of the most well studied of the farmland birds and evidence suggests that 5ha/km2 (5%) of unsprayed or low input cereals, 10ha/km2 (10%) of winter stubble and 1ha/km2 (1%) of wild bird cover are required to meet the UK BAP target of 150,000 by 2010 (Aebisher and Ewald 2004). Tir Gofal provides 2661ha, (1.9%) of potentially beneficial prescriptions within the key areas, 712ha (0.5%) of which have strong evidence of delivery, which will include prescriptions such as those listed above. Clearly, Tir Gofal falls short in


226

providing the required quantity of these prescriptions, and as such is unlikely to deliver targets for grey partridge. Yellowhammers require provision of stubble fields at a level of 10-20 ha per 1 km square (10-20% of a 1 km square) to stabilise or reverse population trends (as measured by the BBS) (Gillings et al. 2004). Given that just 0.7% of the yellowhammer key area is covered by the ‘best’ Tir Gofal prescriptions, which includes winter stubble amongst other prescriptions, the scheme is unlikely to positively influence yellowhammers at the population level. Furthermore, even if all of the 10078ha of the best prescriptions (strong evidence/high delivery) were implemented in the key area, this would amount to just 1.3% of the key area. Gillings and Fuller (2001) estimated that only 46% of stubbles were weedy and therefore likely to be valuable as foraging habitat, so it is possible that this level of stubble provision would reduce significantly if the stubbles were of optimum quality for wintering seed-eating birds, and it is also possible that the availability of wild bird cover crops targeted at particular species’ requirements could also reduce this figure. The habitat quantity figures for grey partridge and yellowhammer (skylark were also included in the yellowhammer study) are likely to be similar for the other resident seed-eating farmland birds that share year-round ecological requirements i.e. tree sparrow and corn bunting, neither of which have a level of habitat provision in Tir Gofal that comes anywhere close to these indicative figures. The importance of the quality of prescriptions as implemented on the ground cannot be overstated. Assessment of this is beyond the scope of this desk study, but needs to be verified by monitoring in the field.


227

8.5 Appendix 5. Species names 8.5.1 Names and threat status of focal species for this review


228

8.5.2 Names of species mentioned in the text.

Arable plant species used to characterise hotspots for arable Key Areas are highlighted in grey.


229

8.6 Appendix 6. Tir Gofal: names and number codes for prescriptions

a) Mandatory prescriptions Detail Management plan code

Broadleaved woodland Stock excluded TG1A

Light grazing TG1B

Existing grazing TG1C

Scrub TG2

Orchards S IMP TG3AO

IMP TG3BO

Parkland S IMP TG3AP

IMP TG3BP

Arable TG3CP

Upland heath TG5

Lowland coastal heath TG6

U IMP acid grassland all categories TG7

U IMP neutral grassland Haymeadow TG8A

Grazed TG8B

U IMP limestone grassland TG9

S IMP grassland Haymeadow TG10A

Grazed TG10B

Marshy grassland TG11

Bog Blanket TG12A

Raised TG12B

Reedbeds, fens and swamps TG13

Coastal habitat - woodland Stock excluded TG14

Light grazing TG14

Existing grazing TG14

Coastal habitat - scrub TG14

Coastal habitat - lowland heath TG14

Coastal habitat - U IMP acid grass TG14

Coastal habitat - U IMP neuitral grass Haymeadow TG14

Grazed TG14

Coastal habitat - S IMP grass Haymeadow TG14

Grazed TG14

Coastal habitat - marshy grass TG14

Coastal habitat - bog Blanket TG14

Raised TG14

Coastal habitat - reedbed, fen & swamp TG14

Coastal habitat - IMP grass TG14A

Coastal habitat - arable TG14B

Saltmarsh Short turf TG15A

Breeding birds TG15B

Existing ungrazed TG15C

Maritime cliff & slope grazed Grazed TG16A

Ungrazed TG16B

Sand dunes TG17IMP - improved, S IMP - semi-improved, U IMP - unimproved, US - unsprayed, GM - grazing ma


230

b) Optional prescriptions Detail Management plan code

Hedgerow restoration TG18

Stone walls TG19A

Stone faced earthbanks TG19B

Earthbanks TG19C

Slate fences Existing TG19D

Re-setting TG19D1

New TG19D2

US cereal, rape & linseed crops Existing arable TG24A

Conversion from IMP grass TG24B

Winter stubble Conventional crop TG25A

US crop TG25B

Spr cereal/OSR undersown grass/legumes TG26

US root crops - winter grazed TG27

Rough grass margins TG28

Uncropped fallow margins TG29

Wildlife cover crop TG30

Conversion of arable land Light grazing on IMP land TG31A

S IMP hay TG31B

S IMP grazed pasture TG31C

IMP coastal GM TG31D

Conversion of IMP grass to S IMP grass Parkland to hay TG32A1Other IMP land to hay TG32A2

Parkland to pasture TG32B1

GM lapwing TG32B21

GM lapwing/wildfowl TG32B22

Other IMP land to pasture TG32B3

Buffer zone TG33

Manage IMP grass - breeding lapwing TG34A

Manage IMP grass - wildfowl TG34B

Restoration of S IMP grass to U IMP grass Neutral grazed TG35A

Acid/lime grazed TG35B

Acid/lime hay TG35C

Neutral hay TG35D

Increase water levels IMP conversion to S IMP TG36A

Marshy grass TG36B

IMP GM lapwing TG36C1

Wildfowl TG36C2

Heath/bog/swamp/reedbed TG36E

Establish broadleaved woodland and scrub On IMP grass TG37A

Natural regeneration TG37D

Restore plantations TG37B

Plant new woodland TG37C

Establish streamside corridors TG38

Establish new reedbeds/swamps TG39

Establish heathland vegetation On acid grass TG40A

On maritime land TG40B

On IMP land TG41

Establish new saltmarshes On IMP grass TG42A

Establish new reedbeds/swamps On saltmarsh TG42B

Establish new sand dunes On IMP land TG43


231

c) Capital works Detail Management plan code

Heather management Burning TG45A

Restoration TG45B

Pollarding TG48

Ditch casting TG49

Bracken control Mechanical TG50.1

Chemical TG50.2

Ground spray TG50.3

Rhododendron control TG51

Other invasive species control TG52

Scrub clearance TG53

Creation or restoration of ponds TG56

Bunds and sluices Soil TG58A

Timber TG58B

Water troughs TG59

Piping for water supply TG60

Barn owl nestboxes TG61

Other nestboxes TG62

Trees and shrubs TG63


232

8.7 Appendix 7. Technical details: merging scheme and focal species datasets Data on species-specific prescription scoring and the definition of key areas for focal species were supplied to the WAG GIS team, in order that the prescription scores and key areas could be merged with the data for Tir Gofal agreements. Data were prepared using the following input data and software packages (Table 57). Table 57 Datasets and software used in the merging process.

Data software Tir Gofal Scheme GIS polygon data MapInfo tab Tir Gofal Scheme GIS point/line data MapInfo tab Species Key Area data MapInfo tab/excel spreadsheet Species Matrices Excel spreadsheet Watsonian County Boundaries MapInfo tab All GIS data was translated into ESRI shapefile format. The structure of data tables behind the geometry of the GIS data was made uniform, and the content of those tables was made regular and understandable using established abbreviations. The geometry of the supplied key areas data was, in some cases, very poor and needed to be repaired before they could be included in the model. Some of these data were geographically inaccurate with poorly conceived boundaries. The species matrix was joined to the Tir Gofal GIS layers based on GIS code so each GIS polygon had an attribute/score for each species. Creating the Union data This is the act of intersecting all polygonal input data geographically, to create a single layer consisting of a geographically distinct polygon for each intersecting section of GIS data. The attribution behind the geometry displays the species matrix score for each polygon and whether each polygon falls within a key area or a vice-county boundary. All input data was geoprocessed within ESRI ArcGIS software using the union tool. Areas were calculated for each distinct polygon using a customised tool. The tabular data was exported into MicroSoft Access, where each row of the data (representing a distinct geographical area) was given a unique identifier. The data were then available for query using MicroSoft Access and can recreate areas of interest for each species with areas. Additional processing An additional stage of processing was necessary for the point and line data. This is because point and line data have no area and so were not processed using the union tools within ArcGIS. To avoid this problem, polygon files were created for both GIS data types and the union process was run again for these data specifically. An algorithm was created for the line/polygon data, which calculated line length from the area registered from the converted polygons. These two data types were supplied as separate data tables; again in MicroSoft Access format.

Potential for biodiversity delivery by welsh agri ...

Documents

Transcript of Potential for biodiversity delivery by welsh agri ...