TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance:

TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance:

Design, incorporation and monitoring of

Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping

TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance:

Design, incorporation and monitoring of

Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping

July 2014

* Connop, S. Lindsay, R., Freeman, J, Clough, J., Kadas, G. and Nash, C.

Environmental Research Group

University of East London

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Cover photo: Bee wolf on flower at Barking Riverside © Stuart Connop

© University of East London 2014

Printed in Great Britain at the University of East London, 4-6 University Way, Docklands,

London, UK, E16 2RD

Connop, S. Lindsay, R., Freeman, J, Clough, J., Kadas, G. and Nash, C. (2014) TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance: Design, incorporation and monitoring of Bark ing Riverside brownfield landscaping. University of East London, London, UK.

2

Table of contents

Page

1 Executive summary.......................................................................... 9

2 Background...................................................................................... 12

2.1 TURAS.............................................................................................. 12

2.2 Urban green infrastructure................................................................ 12

2.3 Regional context - East Thames Corridor, UK.................................. 14

2.4 Barking Riverside.............................................................................. 15

3 Incorporating key habitat features into landscape design........... 17

4 Monitoring......................................................................................... 20

4.1 Establishment of baseline data.......................................................... 21

4.2 Annual monitoring.............................................................................. 22

4.3 Three levels of monitoring................................................................. 23

Vegetation monitoring....................................................................... 23

Invertebrate monitoring..................................................................... 24

Brownfield habitat monitoring............................................................ 26

5 Results.............................................................................................. 27

5.1 Vegetation monitoring....................................................................... 27

5.1.1 Synusial baseline................................................................ 27

5.1.2 Annual fixed-point monitoring............................................. 67

5.1.3 Ground survey of vegetation.............................................. 106

5.2 Invertebrate monitoring..................................................................... 118

5.2.1 Timed counts...................................................................... 118

5.2.2 Sweep nets......................................................................... 157

5.2.3 Pitfall trapping..................................................................... 163

5.3 Brownfield habitat monitoring............................................................ 182

6 Summary............................................................................................ 184

7 Acknowledgements.......................................................................... 194

8 References........................................................................................ 195

Appendix 1........................................................................................ 200

A1.1 2010 sweep net results....................................................... 200




Appendix 2........................................................................................ 215

A2.1 2010 pitfall trap results........................................................ 215



A2.4 2013 pitfall trap results......................................................... 232

Appendix 3 - Brownfield habitat assessment form............................ 248

Appendix 4 - Location of fixed-point markers.................................... 252

3

List of Figures

Page

Figure 3.1 Plan of Barking Riverside site........................................................... 18

Figure 3.2 Aerial photo of Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping site........ 18

Figure 3.3 Plan of Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping habitat pockets. 19

Figure 3.4 Detailed plan of main bank base and bee habitat plan.................... 19

Figure 4.2.1 Natural England survey timing guidance......................................... 22

Figure 5.1.1 Synusia identified at Barking Riverside office landscaping.............. 27

Figure 5.1.2 Floral diversity in BR01, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 106




Figure 5.1.6 Floral diversity in BR05, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping 108















Figure 5.1.21 Average floral diversity for Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping, soft landscaping and remaining brownfield area........ 117

Figure 5.2.1 Location of timed invertebrate survey areas (ISAs)......................... 118

Figure 5.2.2 Plan of Barking Riverside site........................................................... 119

Figure 5.2.3 Aerial photo of the Rivergate Community Centre soft landscaping invertebrate survey areas................................................................ 120

Figure 5.2.4 Average timed bumblebee counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013.................................................................................................. 126

4

Figure 5.2.5 Average timed butterfly counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013... 128

Figure 5.2.6 Total number of species of bumblebee observed at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013................................................... 130

Figure 5.2.7 Total number of species of butterfly observed at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013................................................... 131

Figure 5.2.8 Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010............... 141

Figure 5.2.9 Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011............... 142

Figure 5.2.10 Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012..................................................................................... 143

Figure 5.2.11 Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013..................................................................................... 144

Figure 5.2.12 Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010............... 145

Figure 5.2.13 Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011............... 146

Figure 5.2.14 Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012..................................................................................... 147

Figure 5.2.15 Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013..................................................................................... 148

Figure 5.2.16 Average timed Bombus humilis counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013.................................................................................... 150

Figure 5.2.17 Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010............... 151

Figure 5.2.18 Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011............... 152

Figure 5.2.19 Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012..................................................................................... 153

Figure 5.2.20 Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013..................................................................................... 154

Figure 5.2.21 Invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside sweep net samples, 2012................................................................................... 160

5

Figure 5.2.22 Invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside sweep net samples, 2013................................................................................... 160

Figure 5.2.23 Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the sweep net samples at Barking Riverside, August 2013.................................................................................................. 161

Figure 5.2.24 Total rarity scores for conservation priority Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the sweep net samples at Barking Riverside, August 2013........................................................ 163

Figure 5.2.25 Location of pitfall traps at Barking Riverside Office Landscaping 164

Figure 5.2.26 Total number of invertebrates caught in pitfall traps, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010....................................... 166

Figure 5.2.27 Total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010.......................... 166

Figure 5.2.28 Number of Coleoptera and Araneae individuals recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010....... 167

Figure 5.2.29 Number of Coleoptera and Araneae species recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010....... 168

Figure 5.2.30 Total number of invertebrates caught in pitfall traps, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011....................................... 169

Figure 5.2.31 Total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011.......................... 170

Figure 5.2.32 Number of Coleoptera and Araneae species recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011....... 171

Figure 5.2.33 Average invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside pitfall samples, 2012................................................................................... 173

Figure 5.2.34 Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2012...... 175

Figure 5.2.35 Species rarity scores for Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2012.................................................................................................. 176

Figure 5.2.36 Average invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside pitfall samples, 2013................................................................................... 178

Figure 5.2.37 Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2013...... 180

Figure 5.2.38 Total species rarity scores for Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2013..................................................................... 181

6

List of Tables

Page

Table 5.2.1 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of all bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the

soft landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013..... 132

Table 5.2.2 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of all butterflies on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft

landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013............ 133

Table 5.2.3 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of bumblebee diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with

the soft landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013...................................................................................................................... 134

Table 5.2.4 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed

counts of butterfly diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013..... 135


counts of all bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013...................................................................................................................... 136

Table 5.2.6 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of all butterflies on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and

2013...................................................................................................................... 137

Table 5.2.7 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of bumblebee diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with

the brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013........................................................................ ....................................... 139


counts of butterfly diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013...................................................................................................................... 140

Table 5.2.9 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of Bombus humilis individuals on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with the brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and

2013............................................................................................................ .......... 155

Table 5.2.10 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the pitfall trap invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with brownfield

habitat and the soft landscaping ISAs at Barking Riverside, August 2012........... 174

Table 5.2.11 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the pitfall trap invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with brownfield

habitat and the soft landscaping ISAs at Barking Riverside, August 2013........... 179

Table A1.1.1 Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting........................................ 200

Table A1.1.2 Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting......................... 200

Table A1.1.3 Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank...................................................... 200

Table A1.1.4 Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting......................................... 200

Table A1.1.5 Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting........................ 200

Table A1.1.6 Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting........................... 201

7

Table A1.1.7 Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control................................. 201

Table A.1.2.1 Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting........................................ 201

Table A.1.2.2 Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting......................... 201


Table A1.2.4 Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting........................................ 202



Table A1.2.7 Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control.................................. 203

Table A1.3.1 Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting....................................... 204







Table A1.3.8 Sweep net survey species, ISA8 - soft landscaping area..................................... 207


Table A1.3.10 Sweep net survey species, ISA10 - soft landscaping area................................... 207

Table A1.4.1 Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting........................................ 207









Table A1.4.10 Sweep net survey species, ISA10 - soft landscaping area................................... 214

Table A2.1 Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and A, summer 2010................... 215

Table A2.2 Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and A, summer 2011................... 218

Table A2.3.1 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA1 2012............................................. .................. 220

Table A2.3.2 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA2 2012............................................................... 221




8



Table A2.3.8 Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 8, 9 and 10 2012............................................. 231








Table A2.4.8 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA8a 2013............................................................. 244

Table A2.4.9 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA9a 2013............................................................. 245

Table A2.4.10 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA10 2013............................................................. 246

9

1. Executive Summary

The increasing proportion of people living in urban areas has led to a range of

environmental issues and sustainability challenges. In order to ensure that urban

living is sustainable and that cities have the resilience to cope with environmental

change these challenges must be met.

Restoration and re-creation of green infrastructure in urban areas is a potential

solution to many of these challenges and in high density urban areas with little usable

space at ground level, roof level green infrastructure has perhaps the greatest

potential to contribute to re-greening urban areas.

Given the increasing recognition that the natural environment can provide goods and

services of benefit to humans and the planet (‘ecosystem services’), and that these

services can provide resilience for urban areas, the European Commission is now

advocating well -planned green infrastructure that provides opportunities to protect

and enhance biodiversity.

Transitioning Towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability (TURAS) is an FP7

funded European-wide research and development programme with the aim of

enabling European cities and their rural interfaces to build vitally -needed resilience in

the face of significant sustainability challenges through Knowledge Transfer

Partnerships.

In order to maximise biodiversity, and the associated ecosystem services, in urban

areas it is necessary to incorporate local and regional environmental context into the

design of urban green infrastructure.

Following the incorporation of brownfield habitat characterised landscape design at

Barking Riverside offices, a TURAS research project was established to assess and

monitor the value of the landscaping in terms of biodiversity supported.

Monitoring comprised a mix of photographic, vegetation, invertebrate and brownfield

habitat assessment surveys with the aim of quantifying the range of habitat niches

(synusia), the effect of these synusia on overall site biodiversity, and the effect of

management on maintaining the diversity of habitats and species. Comparisons were

also made with more traditional soft urban landscaping within the Barking Riverside

development and a neighbouring brownfield area of the site.

Twenty-two permanent fixed-point monitoring positions were established throughout

the brownfield and soft landscaping from which site development could be monitored.

Fixed-points were located in the best positions to capture change in the different

habitat areas.

Stereo photographs were taken from each fixed-point to act as a permanent record of

the development of the landscaping. Within the field of view of each fixed point photo

10

pair, the habitat was characterised into synusia and the vegetation within each

synusia was recorded.

In total, 5 synusia were identified within the brownfield landscaping. Within these

synusia, a maximum of 148 species of higher plant plus mosses, lichen and fungi

were recorded in 2012. This represented substatial floral diversity within an area of

approximately 0.5 ha of urban landscaping.

Many of the floral species recorded on the brownfield landscaping pockets were

those considered to be representative of the high quality brownfield habitats within

the region that the landscaping was designed to emulate. Comparison with soft

landscaping pockets of approximately equivalent size revealed that most of the key

brownfield flora was absent and floral diversity was significantly lower than in the

brownfield landscaping pockets.

Invertebrate surveys comprised timed bumblebee and butterfly counts, sweep net

surveys and pitfall trap surveys designed to capture a representative view of overall

habitat quality for ground dwelling invertebrates and those on the herb and shrub

layer vegetation.

Invertebrate species recorded on the landscaping included several species of

national conservation concern, most notably two UKBAP bumblebee species, and

RDB1 (+ Extinct) and RDB2 species, several nationally rare and scarce species as

well as numerous Essex Red Data book species.

Brownfield landscaping consistently outperformed soft landscaping areas in terms of

overall invertebrate diversity and for specific target indicator group (Aranaea,

Coleoptera and Hymenoptera) numbers, diversity and conservation importance.

Timed observational surveys and pitfall trapping revealed variation across the

landscaping relative to habitat heterogeneity. This indicated that the mosaic of

habitats created within the landscaping may have been enhancing overall site

biodiversity.

Timed bumblebee and butterfly counts appeared to be correlated with habitat type,

floral type and floral abundance. Wildflower meadow areas and areas of ornamental

planting with floral species that appeared to be preferred by foraging bumblebees

consistently recorded the highest bumblebee numbers and diversity. Counts on

brownfield landscaping and brownfield habitat areas were consistently higher for both

bumblebee and butterflies than corresponding soft landscaping areas.

Annual comparison of timed counts indicated an initial increase in both bumblebee

and butterfly numbers as the landscaping developed. By 2013, however, bumblebee

numbers and diversity on the landscaping had declined. This indicated that

management interventions were too infrequent to maintain an flower-rich sward.

In contrast butterfly numbers increased year on year indicating an association with

the more mature grass-dominated swards. To ensure habitat provision for

11

bumblebees and butterflies it is thus recommended that wildflower areas be managed

on a 3 year rotation to provide all of the habitat successional stages.

Use of the Brownfield Habitat Assessment form proved to be an effective broad -brush

approach to assessing the quality of the brownfield landscaping in relation to meeting

the targets of incorporating brownfield habitat features into the urban landscaping

initiative. Assessment indicated that the landscaping created had produced a good

approximation of high quality brownfield sites containing several of the key habitat

features but also some negative indicator features.

Annual assessment provided additional evidence to support the development of a

management plan for the conservation of brownfield habitat characteristics within the

landscaping with particular focus on retaining the open flower-rich areas. Results

indicated a need for increased management intervention to mimic the disturbance

regime typical on many brownfield sites to maintain the open swards, floral richness

and abundance of flowers.

Overall results of the monitoring demonstrated that, if designed to mimic habitat of

regional value, carefully planned green infrastructure within sustainable development

could support biodiverse ecosystems containing species of regional and national

conservation value. Such green infrastructure would also be expected to provide a

broader array of additional ecosystem services benefits than generic urban soft

landscaping.

Continued monitoring of the landscaping is vital to establish the appropriate levels of

management for a habitat type typically managed by disturbance, drought and

contamination in the wider landscape. It is also important to monitor patterns of

biodiversity value on the landscaping as the Barking Riverside brownfield site as a

whole continues to be developed.

Nevertheless, preliminary results on the benefits of incorporating regionally important

conservation priority habitat features in urban landscaping initiatives were very

positive and it is hoped that this study will provide enough evidence to encourage the

roll out of similar initiatives using such biomimicry across our urban fabric both in the

UK and globally.

12

2. Background

2.1. TURAS

Transitioning Towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability (TURAS) is an FP7 funded

European-wide research and development programme. The “TURAS” project aims to bring

together urban communities, researchers, local authorities and SMEs to research, develop,

demonstrate and disseminate transition strategies and scenarios to enable European cities

and their rural interfaces to build vitally-needed resilience in the face of significant

sustainability challenges (Collier et al. 2013). To ensure maximum impact, the TURAS project

has developed an innovative twinning approach bringing together decision makers in local

authorities with SMEs and academics to ensure meaningful results and real change are

implemented over the duration of the project. Eleven local authorities or local development

agencies are involved as partners in the project and they will orient research and

development from the outset towards the priority sustainability and resilience challenges

facing their cities. Nine leading academic research inst itutions and six SMEs will work with

these cities helping them to reduce their urban ecological footprint through proposing new

visions, feasibility strategies, spatial scenarios and guidance tools to help cities address these

challenges. The specific challenges addressed in TURAS include: climate change adaptation

and mitigation; natural resource shortage and unprecedented urban growth.

Over the five year duration of the project, the feasibility of these new approaches will be

tested in selected case study neighbourhoods. The impact of these new approaches will be

measured and results compared between participating cities before a final set of strategies

and tools will be developed for demonstration, dissemination and exploitation in other

European cities. This report represents a dissemination tool from Work Package 2 (WP2) of

TURAS - Greening Public and Private Urban Infrastructure. The aim of WP2 is to develop

new visions, feasibility strategies, spatial scenarios and guidance tools to enhance the

biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits of urban green infrastructure. This report

represents an overview of the brownfield landscaping design research carried out at Barking

Riverside (London UK) as part of TURAS to investigate the effect on biodiversity of designing

urban landscaping inspired by regionally important habitat.

2.2. Urban Green Infrastructure

"Green Infrastructure (GI) is the network of natural and semi-natural areas,

features and green spaces in rural and urban, terrestrial, freshwater, coastal

and marine areas" (Naumann et al. 2011).

13

The extent and financial cost of global biodiversity loss is only just being realised (Pushpam

2010). From pollinator declines to the loss of coastal protection services associated with

mangrove swamps and coral reefs, anthropogenic-driven loss of ecosystem services has

impacted communities, government and industry worldwide.

Nowhere is this impact more noticeable than in the mega-cities that dominate our urban

landscapes. Currently more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities. This is predicted

to rise to almost 5 billion by 2030 (UNFPA 2007). Built upon old models of high-density living

and economic development, cities suffer numerous environmental impacts associated with

the loss of biodiversity (White 2002):

cities represent major consumers of energy;

urban heat island effect leads to problems with air quality, energy use and ambient

temperatures;

large expanses of impervious surfaces result in rapid rainwater run‐off and

overloading of storm drains and increases the tendency of rivers to overtop their

banks and flood surrounding land (Environment Agency 2002; Villareal et al. 2004;

Mentens et al. 2006);

quality and quantity of water held in the soil immediately beneath the hard surfaces is

reduced (Foster et al 1998; Marsalek et al. 2006);

surface seepage to re‐charge groundwater aquifers is reduced;

effective desert conditions are created for wildli fe squeezed between urban

expansion and agricultural intensification;

significantly reduced possibilities for contact with nature with a limited range of

synurbic species (Moss and Chadwick 2012) resulting in a reduction in the health and

well‐being of communities (English Nature 2003).

Restoration of greenspace is a potential intervention for all of these problems. Establishing

biodiversity-focused green infrastructure provides numerous ecological and economic

benefits including water management (Mann 2000; Mentens et al. 2006), mitigation of the

urban heat island effect (Ernst and Weigerding 1985; Von Stülpnagel et al. 1990; Bass et al.

2002), energy conservation (Takakura et al. 2000; Niachou et al. 2001) and it is also a

positive step to promoting a sustainable community capable of supporting and enhancing

biodiversity (Pickett et al. 2001; English Nature 2003; Schochat et al. 2006; Cadenasso et al.

2007; Hunter and Hunter 2008).

Green infrastructure in the built environment has traditionally been designed with limited

consideration for biodiversity or regional context. Instead, a blend of horticultural fascination

with exotic species, ease of maintenance, accessibility and an innate desire to control nature

have led to aesthetic appeal and amenity value being the key drivers for urban greenspace

design (Eisenberg 1998). Even selection of species suited to local climates has been limited

14

with arti ficial irrigation and heavy management of urban landscapes common place. This has

lead to a global homogenisation of urban biodiversity with limited diversity (McKinney, 2002;

2006).

Given the increasing recognition that the natural environment can provide goods and services

of benefit to humans and the planet (‘ecosystem services’) and that these services can

support sustainability and resilience in urban areas, the European Commission and the UK

government are now advocating well-planned green infrastructure that provides opportunities

to protect and enhance biodiversity (UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011; DEFRA

2011; HM Government 2011; Town and Country Planning Association and The Wildlife Trus ts

2012; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2012; European Commission

2013). In response to this, there is a need to develop and monitor ‘novel’, biodiversity -focused

designs for green infrastructure at roof, wall and ground-level, and investigate the contribution

they can make to urban biodiversity. The key first step to maximising the resilience and

sustainability in such a process is ensuring that design is multifunctional and is based on

regional context both in terms of being current climate and climate adaptation resilient and

relevant to regional biodiversity of local, national and international conservation value. In

order to maximise biodiversity, and the associated ecosystem services, in urban areas it is

therefore necessary to utilise biomimicry to incorporate local and regional environmental

context into the design of urban green infrastructure. This includes the incorporation of plant

diversity and habitat structure of regional conservation value.

The 'added value' of such a biodiversity-focused climate resilient approach, beyond

biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits, is that the management requirements of the

urban green infrastructure become more sustainable with reduced requirements for fossil fuel

use, artificial irrigation, and fertilizer and pesticide input.

2.3. Regional context - East Thames Corridor, UK

In the UK, the Thames Gateway, Greater London, has been designated a national priority for

urban regeneration and sustainable development. The area is also recognised under Natural

England's Natural Area designations for its distinctive and unique nature conservation value

in terms of wildli fe and natural features. In addition to statutory designation, the value of

brownfield (post-industrial) sites in the area is being increasingly recognised.

A series of brownfield sites have been found to support nationally significant populations of

numerous UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) and Red Data Book (RDB) invertebrates

(Jones 2007; Harvey 2007). Typically comprising a blend of friable substrates and pockets of

contamination, many of the Thames Gateway brownfield sites represent open flower-rich

15

resources with no management intervention that lend themselves to supporting many warmth -

loving species at the edge of their range. Such is the value of the habitat in otherwise heavily

managed urban and rural landscapes that, in the UK, the habitat typical of the highest quality

brownfield sites has been characterised and recently been included in the new list of UK

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats (Riding et al. 2010) as Open Mosaic Habitats

on Previously Developed Land.

The value of these brownfield sites is in the complexity of microhabitats within the wider

mosaic, which support species throughout their lifecycles (Bodsworth et al. 2005). In much of

the literature describing wildli fe-rich brownfield sites, open flower-rich resources, seasonal wet

areas, shelter belts of mid/late successional trees and bushes, early successional ruderal and

scrub, south facing slopes, lichen and mosses, bare ground that heats up rapidly, and blends

of friable substrates are described as essential components of the brownfield mosaic

(Bodsworth et al. 2005; Buglife 2009; Riding et al. 2010). This habitat mosaic is something

that should be aspired to through biomimicry in urban green infrastructure design if

biodiversity conservation is to be a goal in urban areas. Moreover, these brownfield sites are

under greatest pressure from Thames Gateway development (Harvey 2000). For

development in the region to be environmentally sustainable, nationally important invertebrate

populations in the region must be protected through the landscape-scale conservation of

suitable habitat. One step towards achieving this aim is the innovative incorporation of green

infrastructure into new and existing developments through urban landscape design.

2.4. Barking Riverside

Barking Riverside in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, East London (UK)

represents an opportunity for testing these urban green infrastructure design principles.

The Barking Riverside site was a 443 acre brownfield site situated in the south of the borough

sandwiched between a major trunk road that is heavily used for freight traffic and a heavily

industrialised but strategically important empl oyment area. The site was identified for its

potential for the creation of a new sustainable community comprising:

• 10,800 new units;

• 1 district centre;

• 3 schools;

• 25,000 new residents planned over the 20 year build.

In addition to the enormous potential of the site for development in line with National Planning

Policy Framework, the planning process also recognised the value of the greenfield state of

the site in terms of local ecosystem service provision, This included its value as accessible

16

greenspace for health & well -being, pluvial and fluvial stormwater management and

significant biodiversity value including numerous rare and protected species (such as water

voles, grass snakes, bumblebees and birds).

In recognition of this ecosystem service value, planning consent for the site set out a number

of conditions to ensure sustainability was interwoven in all aspects of the development. This

included:

• the development of sustainable public transport infrastructure;

• the conservation of the site's valuable biodiversity;

• the retention of 40% of the site as green space;

• the development of a comprehensive Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDs)

master plan including the use of green roofs on 40% of the properties combined with swales,

rain gardens, balancing ponds and the pre-existing creek network.

As part of the process of ensuring that sustainability was at the core of the design of the

Barking Riverside development a Knowledge Transfer Partnership was established at Barking

Riverside between Barking Riverside Ltd, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,

the University of East London and Natural England to investigate how green infrastructure

design can increase the sustainability and resilience of the Barking Riverside development as

part of the TURAS FP7 programme.

It is hoped that the work that is carried out as part of TURAS at Barking Riverside will provide

practical pointers as to how the new and very diverse community can be established while

being able to accommodate the very real challenges of living alongside industry and

supporting sustainable and resilient biodiverse green infrastructure.

If the Barking Riverside development is to become a sustainable community in the heart of

the Thames Gateway (Barking Riverside 2009), there is a need to incorporate ecological

interest within residential and recreational infrastructure. Natural England's commitment to

conserve the region’s distinctive and unique wildli fe and natural features requires that the

region’s unique invertebrate assemblages, and more specifically, the brownfield habitat

features of interest supporting these populations, must be incorporated when planning

landscape design. In order to sustainably conserve these invertebrate populations, these

habitat features of interest must be incorporated into green infrastructure on a landscape

scale (Usher 1997, Bourn and Thomas 2002; Gilpin 1987, Opdam 1990, Reed 2004).

17

3. Incorporating key habitat features into landscape design

Habitat features occur at a range of differing scales within the landscape. In the sense of

Gillet & Gallandet (1996), and Rivaz-Martinez et al. (1999), these landscape components

occur as nested scales of detail from large-scale landscape features such as the Thames

Valley, to tesela based on the edaphic template, then to phytocoenosis sub-units based on

local conditions and management, to niche-specific (synusial) features representing the small-

scale micro-structure of a habitat. For many invertebrate species, it is the synusial level of

landscape detail which provides the particular niche requirements so essential for the success

of the species. For example, the 5-banded tailed digger wasp (Cerceris quinquefasciata) is

associated with small patches of bare sandy ground within a mosaic of floral nectar sources,

whereas the brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis) requires a mix of dense grass sward

and more disturbed legume-rich grassland patches. When brownfield sites are redeveloped

following traditional urban planning and landscape design principles, many of these vital

synusia are lost.

At Barking Riverside offices (TQ470822), Natural England and DF Clark Bionomique Ltd

incorporated the synusial habitat interest features characteristic of the region’s brownfield

sites into traditional office landscape design techniques. The aim of such design being to

demonstrate that it is possible to create biodiversity-focussed green infrastructure based on

aesthetically pleasing design principles within urban residential and commercial areas. If

successful, this landscape design experiment would have the potential to act as a blue-print

technique for the incorporation of regionally and nationally important conservation priority

habitat features into urban sustainable development.

In order to establish an experiment incorporating brownfield habitat features into urban

landscaping it was first necessary to identify an area of the Barking Riverside site where this

trial could be carried out over a long duration without impact from the site development. It was

decided that the area to be targeted was to the east and west of the main entrance to the

Barking Riverside site offices and around the office complex itself (Figures 3.1 & 3.2).

Once this was determined, DF Clark Bionomique Ltd landscape architects designed a series

of habitat pockets within this landscaped area containing traditional urban landscaping

features (e.g. ornamental flower beds, evergreen hedging) blended with brownfield habitat

features (e.g. south facing sand banks, metal and concrete features, scrub bands and

standing deadwood) (Figures 3.3 & 3.4). These landscape design habitat pockets were

installed during the summer and autumn 2009. Overall, the brownfield landscaping covered

an area of approximately 0.5 ha.

18

Figure 3.1. Plan of Barking Riverside site. Red circle represents the location of the area of

the brownfield landscaping trial.

Figure 3.2. Aerial photo of Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping site. The green

polygons represent the extent of the experimental landscaping. Background image © Bing

Base map. Map produced using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI).

19

Figure 3.3. Plan of Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping habitat pockets. Pockets

are located either side of the entrance road and around Barking Riverside offices. Each

pocket was designed to blend traditional landscaping with brownfield habitat interest features.

Figure 3.4. Detailed plan of main bank base and bee habitat plan. Plans designed by DF

Clark Bionomique Ltd.

20

4. Monitoring

As part of the brownfield landscaping development process, it is necessary to assess the

success of the design in terms of its conservation benefits. Such a demonstration is only

possible if the site is monitored. Monitoring differs from survey because it is characterised by

repeated visits to a locality in order to identify change from a defined state. Hellawell (1978)

has refined the concepts still further by recognising monitoring as an activity used to

recognise change resulting from a specific impact, while surveillance is repeated survey to

identify change for any reason.

In practice it is often extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify conclusive proof of cause -

and-effect in relation to a specific impact on an ecosystem, because the natural world is an

open system. An ecosystem is subject to many influences, not merely those resulting from the

impact under investigation. Thus ‘brownfield landscaping’ may lead to colonisation by

conservation priority invertebrates due to the created habitat features being able to support

these populations, but equally it may be a consequence of the more widespread environment

supporting the populations and the landscaping merely acting as a forage or nesting site but

being unable to support them in isolation. With this in mind, a monitoring programme looking

at the development and colonisation of the site is likely to differ considerably from a general

surveillance programme.

In the case of Barking Riverside office landscaping, the underlying purpose of the monitoring

exercise is closer to Hellawell’s concept of surveillance than to his definition of monitoring. It

is important to recognise this distinction in relation to the programme presented here because

the words “monitoring” and “surveillance” are used very specifically (sensu Hellawell) in some

of the guidance provided by the country conservation agencies, particularly in the various

publications produced by Countryside Council for Wales (Hurford & Perry 2000; Hurford,

Jones & Brown 2001).

The programme detailed here should be recognised as a surveillance programme rather than

a monitoring exercise, even though the term “monitoring” is used throughout the rest of this

document because it is more widely-used and is better understood at least in its broader

sense.

With these aims and constraints in mind, we will present here the outline methodology

incorporated to establish a baseline of biodiversity data for the first year of the brownfield

landscaping and subsequent repeat surveys. Subsequent monitoring was based upon this

baseline data in order to assess the development of the Barking Riverside office landscaping

over time in relation to its value in supporting regional biodiversity, with particular focus on the

niche specific features (‘synusial’ features) of importance to invertebrate populations. In doing

21

so, it is possible to quantify the biodiversity benefits of such landscaping and assess whether

management of the landscaping is effective in conserving biodiversity value in the long term

following installation.

4.1. Establishment of baseline data

A baseline survey is a one-off event because it is impossible, thirty years hence, to come

back and re-do part of the baseline which was omitted from the original programme. It is

possible to establish new baselines for new techniques or new aspects of interest, but it is

impossible to re-capture the past. There is thus a strong argument for carrying out the best

baseline monitoring programme possible within available funding.

If monitoring involves repeated survey at the same locality to determine change of a feature

over time, then monitoring requires that any detected change is a true reflection of change in

the feature, and not simply a change in the method of monitoring adopted between one date

and the next. In other words, it is necessary to be confident that 100% of detected change

results only from changes in the feature being monitored, and that none of this change results

from the monitoring methods employed.

Four key requirements arise from this condition:

that the methods used at every repeat visit are identical to those used during the

baseline survey;

that the first survey – the baseline survey – records all likely features of interest in a

way that is both repeatable and anticipates as far as possible all future likely

information needs;

that the method is sufficiently independent of the observer employed to ensure that

observer bias is minimised;

that the monitoring method does not itself induce change in the feature.

The rationale behind these factors was incorporated into the design of the baseline survey

methodology to provide information on four key habitat features:

vegetation composition;

vegetation structure;

habitat structure;

invertebrate assemblages.

22

4.2. Annual monitoring

The monitoring work consisted of two distinct components. The first component was the

fieldwork to monitor the development of target flora and colonisation of the site by

invertebrates. Fieldwork was carried out at the same time each year. This comprised a single

survey period annually at the end of July and beginning of August. This timeframe was

selected to ensure that maximum biodiversity associated with warm open brownfield sites

was present on the landscaping at the time of survey (Figure 4.2.1). These survey timings

also specifically maximised the probability of recording the UK Biodiversity Action Plan

bumblebee species the brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis), a species recorded on

the Barking Riverside site prior to development.

Figure 4.2.1. Natural England survey timing guidance. Taken from Templates for

Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Validation Checklists (Pilot draft) 2007, produced by

the Association of Local Government Ecologists.

23

The second component was the analysis and presentation of the resulting data, with a

particular focus on informing site management, identifying beneficial habitat features and

guiding practical management considerations. All of this is underpinned by scientific evidence

obtained from the monitoring work.

4.3 Three levels of monitoring

Vegetation monitoring

For a basic level of monitoring the repeatability and value of photography cannot be

surpassed. Not only does it capture a portrait of the site at a particular point in time, but this

portrait can then be examined by subsequent researchers at any point in the future for further

analysis. For this reason, the Barking Riverside office landscaping was divided into a series of

management units and each was monitored by fixed-point stereo photography. Annual

photography would provide easily interpretable surveillance of vegetative development.

Fixed points along the main track were determined from which stereo photos of vegetation

were taken (Appendix 4). Each point was marked with a permanent surveyors peg and a GPS

reading of location was taken using a GPSmap 60CSx (Garmin, Hampshire, UK). Records of

all fixed-point locations are provided in the Results section.

Once each fixed point was established, a tripod camera was positioned above the location

and orientated to best record the habitat management unit. Once orientated, the bearing of

the camera lens was recorded to ensure annual replicability. Within each stereo photo -pair

the height of a landmark -feature was recorded. Based on the height of this, a scale bar was

generated for vegetation height comparisons.

Fixed-point stereo photographs were taken:

in colour;

in stereo;

from a known point in a known direction.

Whilst not presented within this report, an archive of the stereo photograph pairs for each

fixed-point location are available in electronic format from the University of East London’s

Environmental Research Group (www.uel.ac.uk/erg). It is particularly important that the

photographs were taken in stereo. They have, for example, the advantage of giving a much

clearer picture of the vegetation height and microtopography than is possible with

monographic fixed-point recording.

24

Stereo-views involve no complex technology - merely a 35mm camera, tripod, fixed point

positions and a marker post for scale. The photos are taken using a normal digital camera,

merely moving the tripod sideways by about 5 cm between the two photos. The view of the

site from each fixed-point is selected to show the foreground vegetation. The viewpoint is

also selected to highlight areas of particular interest (e.g. vegetation boundaries, important

vegetation types, and rich mixtures of structures and vegetation).

In addition to the fixed-point photography, ground survey of vegetation was carried out. Plant

identification followed Stace (2010). Results are presented as a series of photographs of

each habitat management unit with a record of all of the higher plant species readily

distinguishable within each synusia of the landscaping within the field of view during the

baseline survey.

Invertebrate monitoring

Due to the enormous time and financial resource limitations associated with comprehensive

general surveys, invertebrate survey was targeted towards key species and groups. Within

the Barking region of the Thames Corridor, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)

invertebrate species with perhaps the highest probability of colonising and utilising the

proposed landscaping are the brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis), the shrill carder

bee (Bombus sylvarum ), the red-shanked carder bee (Bombus ruderarius) and the mining

bee (Colletes halophilus). Another potential coloniser of note in the region is the RDB3 mining

bee species Andrena florae.

Due to this potential for UKBAP bee colonisers on the site and the inclusion of bee nesting

bank habitat within the landscaping, it was decided that surveillance would be particularly

targeted at Hymenoptera. Other groups targeted with the invertebrate monitoring included

Araneae and Coeloptera. These groups were targeted for survey as they have been found to

be abundant on London brownfield sites, and are considered to be good indicators of habitat

quality (Kremen et al. 1993; Buchholz 2010; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al. 2013). Additional

invertebrates observed/recorded during surveys were identified to functional group level

unless species level identification was straightforward.

Surveying comprised fixed-time walking surveys, fixed-time sweep net surveys and pit fall

trapping. Surveys were carried out within a series of Insect Survey Areas (ISAs). These were

designed to be representative of each of the range of brownfield habitat characteristics

represented by the habitat management units. Surveys were also carried out on a

neighbouring brownfield area and, for the years 2012 & 2013, on a control area of more

traditional landscaping within a neighbouring area of the Barking Riverside development.

25

Fixed-time walking surveys - a series of fixed-timed walks were carried out encompassing the

identified habitat management units of the Barking Riverside site landscaping. Ten repeated

five minute walked-surveys were carried out within each unit. Walks comprised a modified

version of the bee walk transects used by Banaszak (1980) and Saville et al. (1997).

Modification of the method was necessary as the shape and forage distribution of each unit

was too patchy and discontinuous for single straight-line transect walks to be effective. Thus,

non-linear walks were used which covered the whole of each unit including the main flowering

patches.

Due to the observational (rather than capture) design of this standardised invertebrate

monitoring method, it was only possible to record invertebrates readily identifiable on the wing

or by rapid assessment following capture in a queen bee marking cage (Kwak 1987). Thus

identification was limited to bumblebees and butterflies (plus any other individuals easily

identifiable on the wing such as dragonflies).

Observations were made approximately 2 m either side of the observer and walking speed

was about 10 m per minute. Timed walking surveys were carried out in early August each

year. The survey dates corresponded with the peak flight periods for a range of bumblebee

species in southern England as reported by Edwards and Jenner (2005) and based on

observed peak timings from previous surveys in the region (Connop et al. 2010). In order to

standardise search conditions, all searches were conducted between 9:30 and 17:00 BST

and during warm dry weather favourable to bumblebee and butterfly activity.

By carrying out fixed-timed surveys it was possible to standardise sampling effort between the

habitat management units. This enabled comparison of invertebrate populations across the

site and assessment of the effectiveness of the landscaping and landscaping management

year-upon-year as Barking Riverside as a whole develops.

Fixed-time sweep net surveys – a 5 minute sweep net survey was carried out in each of the

Invertebrate Survey Areas. Groups targeted included Aculeates, Diptera and Syrphidae. The

standardised nature of the sweep net surveys made them replicable between each study

year.

Due to the lack of establishment of grass and clover/ flower meadow habitat areas in the first

year (2010), general sweep net surveys through established herbaceous vegetation were not

possible. Sweep net surveys were therefore targeted towards invertebrates observed, either

on the wing or resting on the ground or on flowers, that were not readily identifiable during

fixed-time walking surveys. The 2010 surveys were 15 minutes as this modification in method

26

meant that it was more difficult to collect a sample representative of the habitat pocket

assemblage.

Following surveying, identification of samples collected during sweep netting surveying was

required.

Pitfall traps – a series of pit fall traps were located in the Invertebrate Survey Areas across the

site. Five traps were located in each ISA. Pitfall traps were positioned to coincide with areas

targeted by fixed-time walking surveys and fixed-point photography. Traps were left in situ for

two weeks and were then checked and emptied. Individuals trapped were identified to

functional group level (e.g. Diptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Dermaptera, Orthroptera,

Collembola, Gastropoda and Isopoda) with the exception of the target groups of

Hymenoptera, Araneae and Coleoptera which were identified to species level.

Brownfield habitat monitoring

In addition to the habitat surveillance programme describe above, a Brownfield Habitat

Assessment Survey (Roberts et al. 2006) was carried out across the landscaped site

(Appendix 3). This was carried out concurrently with vegetation and invertebrate surveys. The

brownfield assessment survey was then reassessed annually as an additional means of

monitoring landscaping development in relation to brownfield habitat quality targets.

27

5. Results

5.1. Vegetation monitoring

5.1. 1 Synusial baseline

The vegetation monitoring baseline was carried out on the 6th

August 2010. The vegetation

monitoring baseline was started at the woodland habitat unit at the western end of the site, on

the right -hand side (entering) of the entrance (Figure 3.3).

The camera used was a Nikon D50 digital SLR with 18-55 mm lens, set on 18mm. The

camera height on top of the tripod was 1465 mm. This represented the height from ground

level to the base of the camera. For each pair of stereo photos taken, the height of a fixed

object within the view was taken. Each height was represented as a yellow and black scale

bar on the 2010 photos of each habitat unit (BR01 to BR19).

Synusia identified

Five different synusia were identified during the establishment of the vegetation monitoring

baseline. These comprised:

ground layer;

herb layer;

shrub layer;

tree layer;

non-ground level layer.

Each of these synusia are defined and classified in Figure 5.1.1.

Figure 5.1.1. Synusia identified at Barking Riverside office landscaping.

28

The following sections BR01 to BR19 each contain one of the two stereo photographs taken

at each fixed-monitoring point within the Barking Riverside office landscaping during the 2010

baseline survey. Also included is a diagrammatic representation of the distribution of the

synusia within each photograph, details of the location and bearing of each fixed-point photo

pair, and a list of the vegetation recorded for each synusia within each of the 19 key habitat

management units for the baseline survey. A diagram representing the locations of each

fixed-point marker is presented as Appendix 4.

29

BR01

30

Fixed-point data: BR01 Location: TQ 46912 82230 Camera bearing: 157.5° Scale bar: = 1.73 m

Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer:

Planted ground flora – Snowy mermaid (Libertia formosa), Foxglove (Digitalis x

purpurascens), Primrose var. Miller’s Crimson (Primula japonica ‘Miller’s Crimson’),

Candelabra primrose (Primula bulleyana), Common ivy (Hedera helix), Lenten hellebore

(Helleborus orientalis ‘Smokey’), Stinking hellebore (Helleborus foetidus).

Colonised ground flora – Common nettle (Urtica dioica) Scented mayweed (Matricaria

recutita), Wild carrot (Daucus carota), Germander speedwell (Veronica chamaedrys),

Creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), Hoary mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).

Shrub layer:

Planted shrubs – Dog rose (Rosa canina), Common holly (Ilex aquifolia), Goat willow (Salix

caprea), Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides), Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Acer

campestre.

Tree layer:

Planted trees - Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), Field maple (Acer campestre), Deborah

Norway maple (Acer platanoides ‘Deborah’)

Non-ground level layer

On dead standing wood - Hedera helix

31

BR02

32

Fixed-point data: BR02 Location: TQ 46924 82236 Camera bearing: 173° Scale bar: = 1.70 m

Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora: - Libertia formosa, Hedera helix, Digitalis x purpurascens,

Colonised ground flora: - Cirsium arvense, Hirschfeldia incana, Urtica dioica, White

deadnettle (Lamium album), Field bindweed (Convovulus arvensis), Daucus carota, Bristly

ox-tongue (Picris echioides ).

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs – Rosa canina, Ilex aquifolia, Salix caprea, Hippophae rhamnoides,Crataegus

monogyna, Acer campestre

Tree layer

Planted trees - Acer campestre, Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum ).


On dead standing wood - Bracket fungus, Tree moss (Isothecium myosuroides ).

33

BR03

34


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Helleborus orientalis ‘Smokey’, Libertia formosa

Colonised ground flora - Cirsium arvense, Picris echioides, Smooth sow thistle (Sonchus

oleraceous), Veronica chamaedrys, Hirschfeldia incana

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Rosa canina, Ilex aquifolia, Salix caprea, Hippophae rhamnoides, Crataegus

monogyna, Acer campestre

Tree layer

Trees - Weeping silver birch (Betula pendula ‘Tristis’)


On dead standing wood - Lichen

35

BR04

36


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Echinacea ‘Arts Pride’ (Echinacea purpurea ‘Arts Pride’), Ox-eye daisy

(Leucanthemum vulgare), Coneflower (Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’)

Colonised ground flora - Hirschfeldia incana, Matricaria recutita, Picris echioides, Sweet

clover (Melilotus officinalis), Yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Red goosefoot (Chenopodium

rubrum), White goosefoot (Chenopodium album), Ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata),

Birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium), Lesser burdock

(Arctium minus), Black nightshade (Solanum nigrum), Common knotgrass (Polygonum

aviculare), Black medick (Medicago lupulina), Annual mercury (Mercurialis annua), Common

vetch (Vicia sativa), Sainfoin (Onobrychis vicifolia)

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Lavander ‘Hidcote’ (Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’ ), Japanese barberry

(Berberis thungerbii), Hedera helix,

Colonised shrubs - Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg)

37

BR05

38


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Leucanthemum vulgare

Colonised ground flora - Mercurialis annua, Calystegia sepium, Plantago lanceolata,

Chenopodium album, Black horehound (Ballota nigra), Urtica dioica, Hirschfeldia incana,

Onobrichis vicifolia, Red clover (Trifolium pratense), Spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Achillea

millefolium, Rosebay willowherb (Epilobium angustifolium), Square-stalked willowherb

(Epilobium tetragonum), Creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans)

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Ilex aquifolium, Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Common beech (Fagus

sylvatica), Hedera helix

39

BR06

40


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’

Colonised ground flora - Plantago lanceolata, Mercurialis annua, Chenopodium album,

Cirsium arvense, Calystegia sepium, Lotus corniculatus, Ballota nigra, Epilobium

angustifolium, Chenopodium rubrum, Urtica dioica, Epilobium tetragonum, Narrow-leaved

ragwort (Senecio inaequidens), Potentilla reptans

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Ilex aquifolia, Fagus sylvatica

41

BR07

42


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Colonised ground flora - Cirsium arvense, Hirschfeldia incana, Millet spp (Panicum

miliaceum), Urtica dioica, Matricaria recutita, Calystegia sepium, Arctium minus

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Rosa canina, Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), Salix caprea, Dogwood (Cornus

sanguinea), Fagus sylvatica, Acer campestre

43

BR08

44


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Globe thistle (Echinops ritro)

Colonised ground flora - Cirsium vulgare, Chenopodium rubrum, Melilotus officinalis, Plantago

lanceolata, Medicago lupulina, Mallow (Malva sylvestris), Potentilla reptans, Lotus

corniculatus, Trifolium pratense, Onobrychis vicifolia, Mercurialis annua, Epilobium

tetragonum, Cirsium arvense

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Buddleia (Buddleia var.), Pyracantha ‘Red Column’ (Pyracantha coccinea

var. Red Column), Rosemary (Rosmarinus prostates)

45

BR09

46


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Red campion (Silene dioica), Feather Grass (Stipa tenuissima),

Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’, Michaelmas daisy (Aster pyrenaeus lutetia),Russian sage

(Perovsk ia atriplicifolia), Verbena (Verbena bonariensis), Sage var. (Salvia x superba),

Round-headed rampion (Phyteuma orbiculare)

Colonised ground flora - Medicago lupulina, Hirschfeldia incana, Cirsium arvense,

Chenopodium album, Plantago lanceolata, Polygonum aviculare, Potentilla reptans, Malva

sylvestris, Chenopodium rubrum, Cirsium vulgare, Onobrychis vicifolia, Sonchus oleraceous,

Picris echioides, Epilobium tetragonum, Solanum nigrum, Narrow-leaved birds foot trefoil

(Lotus glaber), Senecio inaequidens, Achillea millefolium

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Buddleia var., Salix caprea, Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Hebe (Hebe

pinguifolia ‘Pagei ’), Gorse (Ulex europaeus)

Colonised shrubs - Rubus fruticosus agg.

47

BR10

48


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Colonised ground flora - Hirschfeldia incana, Chernopodium album, Onobrychis vicifolia,

Mercurialis annua, Chenopodium album, Cirsium vulgare, Potentilla reptans, Chamaenerion

angustifolium, Lotus corniculatus, Medicago lupulina, Cirsium arvense, Ballota nigra,

Epilobium tetragonum, Borage (Borage officinalis)

Colonised ground flora (withn the planting pocket) - Cirsium arvense, Picris echioides,

Hirschfeldia incana, Common vetch (Vicia sativa), Greater plantain (Plantago major), Brassica

spp., Medicago lupulina, Lotus corniculatus, Potentilla reptans, Malva sylvestris,

Chenopodium rubrum, Matricaria recutita, Veronica chamaedrys, Plantago lanceolata,

Mercurialis annua, Achillea millefolium, Redshank (Persicaria maculosa)

Planted ground flora (withn the planting pocket) – Rockcress (Aubrieta deltoidea ‘Royal

Blue’)

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs – Buddleia var., Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’

Planted shrubs (within planting pocket) – Buddleia var, Salix caprea

49

BR11

50


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer:

Planted ground flora – Libertia formosa, Digitalis x purpurascens, Helleborus orientalis

‘Smokey’, Helleborus foetidus , Common male fern (Dryopteris filix-mas), Ladder-to-heaven

(Polygonatum multiflorum ), Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’, Lords and ladies (Arum italicum),

Candleabra primula (Primula bulleyana), Silene dioica, Spurge (Euphorbia wulfenii)

Colonised ground flora - Chenopodium album, Solanum nigrum, Picris echioides,

Hirschfeldia incana, Matricaria chamomilla, Ballota nigra, Calystegia sepium, Sonchus

oleraceous, Purple deadnettle (Lamium purpureum ), Urtica dioica, Mercurialis annua,

Plantago lanceolata, Polygonum aviculare, Persicaria maculosa, Veronica chamaedrys, White

campion (Silene latifolia), Bladder campion (Silene vulgaris), Cow parsley (Anthriscus

sylvestris)

Shrub layer:

Planted shrubs –. Salix caprea, Buddleia var.


Tree layer:

Planted trees - Acer campestre, Acer platanoides ‘Deborah’, Betula pendula ‘Tristis’


On dead standing wood – Hedera helix, Calystegia sepium, Lichen, Cirsium arvense

51

BR12

52


Synusia identified

Herb layer

Colonised ground flora - Arctium minus, Cirsium arvense, Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), Picris

echioides, Senecio inaequidens

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Salix caprea, Acer campestre, Cornus sanguinea, Crataegus monogyna, Ilex

aquifolium, Rosa canina


53

BR13

54


Synusia identified

Herb layer

Colonised ground flora – Common knapweed (Centaurea nigra), Hirschfeldia incana, Cirsium

vulgare, Chenopodium album, Mercurialis annua, Lotus corniculatus, Melilotus officinalis,

Trifolium pratense, Scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum), Vicia sativa,

Calystegia sepium, Plantago lanceolata, Hemlock (Conium maculatum), Potentilla reptans,

Malva sylvestris, Chenopodium rubrum, Cirsium arvense, Senecio jacobaea, Urtica dioica,

Solanum nigrum,

Planted ground flora – Echinacea purpurea ‘Arts Pride’, Gayfeather (Liatris spicata)

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs – Buddleia var., Salix caprea, Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’

N.B. Due to problems with the camera’s waterproof housing during the original survey, the stereo photos taken at this recording point were not of sufficient quality to be used. Thus a second visit was made to the site on the 17

th October 2010 and a second pair of stereophotos

was taken from the same location. Whilst this occurrence was unfortunate, it does demonstrate the repeatability of the method used for establishing the fixed point monitoring photos. All synusial descriptions are those recorded on the original day of the survey.

55

BR14

56


Synusia identified

Herb layer

Colonised ground flora – Chenopodium album, Calystegia sepium, Hirschfeldia incana,

Potentilla reptans, Plantago lanceolata, Cirsium vulgare, Onobrychis vicifolia, Senecio

jacobaea, Vicia sativa, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Picris echioides, Salad burnet

(Sanguisorba minor), Mercurialis annua, Malva sylvestris, Medicago lupulina, Sonchus

oleraceous, Epilobium tetragonum,

Planted ground flora – Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs – Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Berberis thungerbii, Fagus sylvatica,


57

BR15

58


Synusia identified

Herb layer

Colonised ground flora – Cirsium arvense, Calystegia sepium, Arctium minus, Cirsium

vulgare, Tripleurospremum inodorum, Sonchus oleraceous, Urtica dioica, Hirschfeldia incana,

Common hop (Humulus lupulus),Strawberry (Fragaria vesca), Picris echioides, Potentilla

reptans, Conium maculatum, Leucanthemum vulgare, Mercurialis annua, Veronica

chamaedrys, Malva sylvestris, Persicaria maculosa

Planted ground flora – Japanese anemone (Anemone hupehensis ‘Japonica’), Echinops ritro

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs – Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’, Fagus sylvatica

Tree layer

Planted trees – Mountain Ash ‘Edulis’ (Sorbus aucuparia ‘Edulis’), Swedish whitebeam

(Sorbus intermedia)

59

BR16

60


Synusia identified

Herb layer

Planted ground flora – Amenity turf, Digitalis x purpurascens

Colonised ground flora (Lavender patch) – Conium maculatum, Veronica chamaedrys,

Persicaria maculosa, Mercurialis annua, Calystegia sepium, Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus

repens), Lamium album, Picris echioides, Solanum nigrum, Polygonum aviculare, Urtica

dioica

Colonised ground flora (Holly, pyracanthus and beech patch) – Ranunculus repens, Picris

echioides, Chenopodium album, Cirsium arvense, Persicaria maculosa, Daisy (Bellis

perennis), Urtica dioica, Calystegia sepium, Leucanthemum vulgare, Veronica chamaedrys,

Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale ssp.), Mercurialis annua, Sonchus oleraceous, Conium

maculatum, Polygonum aviculare

Colonised ground flora (Pyracanthus, lavender and holly patch): Groundsel (Senecio

vulgaris), Conium maculatum, Cirsium arvense, Veronica chamaedrys, Picris echioides,

Ranunculus repens, Calystegia sepium,

Shrub layer

Colonised shrubs - Butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii ),

Planted shrubs (Lavender patch) – Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Shrubby honeysuckle

(Lonicera nitida ‘Baggensens Gold’), Hebe pinguifolia ‘Pagei’, Ilex aquifolia, Berberis

thungerbii, Fagus sylvatica, Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’, Berberis darwinii

61

BR17

62


Synusia identified

Herb layer

Colonised ground flora – Urtica dioica, Conium maculatum, Senecio vulgaris, Picris echioides,

Cirsium vulgare, Cirsium arvense, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Veronica chamaedrys,

Spurrey (Spergula spp. ), Malva sylvestris, Calystegia sepium, Broad-leaved dock (Rumex

obtusifolium), Mercurialis annua, Hirschfeldia incana, Polygonum aviculare, Shepard’s purse

(Capsella bursa-pastoris)

Planted ground flora – Verbena bonariensis, Stipa tenuissima, Aster pyrenaeus lutetia,

Perovsk ia atriplicifolia, Bowles’ perennial wall flower (Erysimum bicolour ‘Bowles ’ ‘Mauve’)

Shrub layer

Colonised shrubs – Rubus fruticosus agg.

Tree layer

Planted trees – Betula pendula ‘Tristis’

63

BR18

64


Synusia identified

Herb layer

Colonised ground flora – Hirschfeldia incana, Conium maculatum, Veronica chamaedrys,

Persicaria maculosa, Chenopodium album, Rumex obtusifolius, Ranunculus repens, Solanum

nigrum, Cleavers (Galium aparine), Wood-sorrel (Oxalis acetosella), Spergula spp., Urtica

dioica, Sonchus oleraceous, Calystegia sepium, Picris echioides

Planted ground flora – Erysimum bicolour ‘Bowles’ ‘Mauve’, Verbena bonariensis, Stipa

tenuissima, Aster pyrenaeus lutetia

Shrub layer

Colonised shrubs – Buddleia davidii

Planted shrubs – Rosa canina, Hebe pinguifolia ‘Pagei’, Fagus sylvatica, Lavandula

angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’

65

BR19

66


Synusia identified

Herb layer

Colonised ground flora (Pyracantha patch) – Polygonum aviculare, Hirschfeldia incana ,

Cirsium arvense, Calystegia sepium, Capsella bursa-pastoris, Mercurialis annua, Picris

echioides, Chenopodium album, Sonchus oleraceous

Colonised ground flora (Grass-slope patch): Mercurialis annua, Chenopodium album,

Leucanthemum vulgare, Picris echioides, Sonchus oleraceous, Solanum nigrum, Calystegia

sepium, Polygonum aviculare, Veronica chamaedrys, Cirsium arvense, Capsella bursa-

pastoris, Oxalis acetosella, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Conium maculatum, Silene vulgaris,

Arctium minus, Malva sylvestris, Epilobium tetragonum, Senecio vulgaris, Chenopodium

rubrum, Potentilla reptans, Plantago lanceolata

Planted ground flora – Stipa tenuissima

Shrub layer

Colonised shrubs – Rubus fruticosus agg.

Planted shrubs – Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’, Berberis japonica

67

5.1. 2 Annual fixed-point photo monitoring

Fixed-point photo surveys were repeated annually to assess how vegetation and synusial

distribution developed during the monitoring period. The following section includes one of the

stereo photo pairs taken at each fixed-point during the end of July/early August in 2010, 2011,

2012, 2013.

The fixed-point photos effectively demonstrated a pattern of gradual vegetation colonisation

between the 2010 and 2013 surveys. In terms of the original target of creating brownfield-

inspired landscaping with open floristically-rich habitats, the 2011 and 2012 survey periods

appeared to be the most optimal state for the landscaping in relation to these targets. From

an aesthetic perspective, the 2011 survey period was perhaps the most optimal with amenity

grass areas cropped short and wildflower areas allowed to develop. From a biodiversity

perspective, the 2012 survey period appeared to be most optimal as it appeared to be most

floristically and structurally abundant and rich.

By the time of the 2013 fixed-point photo survey, the vegetation in the habitat pockets

appeared to be relatively overgrown in relation to the original targets. This appeared to be

indicative that the management regime being carried out on the landscaping was

inappropriate for maintaining an open flower-rich sward. Further evidence for this was

provided by the vegetation surveys.

68

BR01

2010

2011

69

2012

2013

70

BR02

2010

2011

71

2012

2013

72

BR03

2010

2011

73

2012

2013

74

BR04

2010

2011

75

2012

2013

76

BR05

2010

2011

77

2012

2013

78

BR06

2010

2011

79

2012

2013

80

BR07

2010

2011

81

2012

2013

82

BR08

2010

2011

83

2012

2013

84

BR09

2010

2011

85

2012

2013

86

BR10

2010

2011

87

2012

2013

88

BR11

2010

2011

89

2012

2013

90

BR12

2010

2011

91

2012

2013

92

BR13

2010

2011

93

2012

2013

94

BR14

2010

2011

95

2012

2013

96

BR15

2010

2011

97

2012

2013

98

BR16

2010

2011

99

2012

2013

100

BR17

2010

2011

101

2012

2013

102

BR18

2010

2011

103

2012

2013

104

BR19

2010

2011

105

2012

2013

106

5.1. 3 Ground survey of vegetation

A vegetation survey was carried out within the field of view of each of the fixed -point photos.

Due to the small size of each habitat pocket it was possible to make an inventory of all higher

plant species within each section of the landscaping. All plant species observed that were

readily identifiably (i.e. not including very young shoots) were included in the surveys.

Surveys were carried out in late July/early August annually from 2010 to 2013. Whilst it was

possible that some species of ground flora were missed if they were very scarce within a

particular survey area, the same surveying effort was used within each landscaping pocket

and between each year so that results should be directly comparable as a measure of change

in floral diversity within the landscaping.

Inventory counts give no indication of relative abundance of each floral species, so it was not

possible to assess how abundance of each species changed over time. However, a target of

the brownfield landscaping was to create open florally diverse habitat pockets suitable for a

broad variety of wildlife including pollinators. As such, relative diversity of flora is an effective

measure of how closely the landscaping was meeting original design targets and how

effective the management of the landscaping was in maintaining the open and floristically

diverse nature of the habitat pockets.

The following Figures (5.1.2 to 5.1.20) represent the pattern of number of species for planted

ground flora, colonised ground flora, planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for

each of the brownfield landscaping habitat pockets over the four year survey period since the

landscaping was established. They are therefore intended to represent an assessment of the

floral diversity of each habitat pocket over time.

Figure 5.1.2. Floral diversity in BR01, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora, planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the

landscaping was established in autumn 2009.

107

Figure 5.1.3. Floral diversity in BR02, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars

represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,

planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the






108









109









110



planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years sinc e the






111









112









113









114









115









116

Different floral groups demonstrated differing trends in relation to species diversity over the

four year survey period. In general, planted ground flora species numbers remained fairly

consistent throughout the survey period although there was some evidence to indicate that a

proportion of the original planted ground flora were not able to persist following the natural

colonisation of ground flora and shrubs. With a greater management input it may have been

possible to increase the rate of survival of planted ground flora, howe ver, such brownfield

landscaping is intended to be relatively low maintenance when compared to more traditional

urban soft landscaping.

With the exception of the habitat pocket BR16, (a particularly ornamental planting area within

the landscaping with large open ornamental beds) all of the habitat pockets demonstrated a

similar pattern of ground flora colonisation. This comprised an increase in species number

between the 2010 and 2011 surveys followed by a substantial decrease in diversity either

beginning with the 2012 survey or, more commonly by the time of the 2013 survey. Typically

the 2012 surveys represented the most florally diverse period for the landscaping pockets. It

thus appeared that the reduction in landscape management between the 2011-2012 period

and 2012-2013 period was too infrequent to maintain the floral diversity typical of open

mosaic habitat on previously developed land found on the Barking Riverside site prior to the

site development.

Planted shrubs appeared to fare better than the planted ground flora with all but habitat

pocket BR3 retaining all of the shrubs that were originally planted. Although low in terms of

species number, colonising shrubs were frequently recorded throughout the habitat pockets

with a general trend of increasing number over time. Typical species encountered included

Rubus fruticosus, Buddleia davidii, Sambucus ebulus, Hippophae rhamnoides and Rosa

canina. The gradual increase in colonising shrubs was another indicator that 2012 to 2013

management was ineffective in relation to maintaining an open and florally diverse habitat.

With the exception of a single horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) root stump which

was recorded as growing during the 2010 survey on BR02, all planted tree species were

consistently recorded throughout the surveys.

Whilst the overall species diversity of the landscaping habitat pockets was in decline by the

time of the 2013 surveys, average species diversity was still considerably higher than on the

soft landscaping areas within the Barking Riverside Phase 1 that were monitored as control

areas for invertebrate comparison studies (Section 5.2). Figure 5.1.21 shows the average

number of floral species in the habitat pockets of the brownfield landscaping compared to

equivalent areas of soft landscaping. Methodology for floral inventory survey of the soft

landscaped areas within the Phase 1 development was the same as that used for the

brownfield landscaping. Timing was also the same.

Floral diversity on the brownfield landscaping was substantially higher than that on the soft

landscaping. Mann-Whitney U (2-tailed) Exact tests revealed that the difference between the

average floral diversity on the brownfield landscaping pockets was significantly higher than

that on the soft landscaping areas in 2012 and 2013 (p = 0.048 and p = 0.006 respectively).

Floral diversity was also higher on the brownfield landscaping than on an equivalent area of

brownfield habitat on the Barking Riverside site that was yet to be developed. The area in

question was selected as being representative of Open Mosaic Habitat across the site as a

whole. The brownfield habitat area was surveyed as a control area for invertebrate

comparison studies. Only one habitat area was surveyed so statistical analysis was not

possible.

117

Figure 5.1.21. Average floral diversity for Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping,

soft landscaping and remaining brownfield area. Bars represent the average counts of

total floral species for each type of landscaping for 2012 and 2013. For brownfield

landscaping n = 19, for soft landscaping n = 3, and for brownfield n = 1. Area of each habitat

pocket surveyed was similar. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

In total, 115 floral species were recorded on the brownfield landscaping habitat in 2010, 133

in 2011, 148 in 2012 and 127 species in 2013. This pattern of initially increasing diversity

followed by a decline by the time of the 2013 survey was similar to the pattern recorded for

each individual habitat management unit. Nevertheless, 127 floral species in an area of 0.5 ha

of urban landscaping should still be considered to be very diverse habitat. This represents

over a third of the total number of floral species recorded on the whole of the 443 acre site

during the original 2001 Environmental Impact Assessment baseline ecological survey.

118

5.2. Invertebrate monitoring

Invertebrate monitoring was carried out using three methods:

i) Timed counts;

ii) Sweep net survey;

iii) Pitfall trapping.

5.2.1 Timed counts

Ten separate five-minute timed counts were carried out on each of six key habitat areas

selected to encompass the diversity of the brownfield landscaping management units. These

areas were termed Invertebrate Survey Areas (ISA) 1 to 6. An additional area was surveyed

within the surrounding ‘brownfield’ landscape (ISA7). The order of surveys was randomised

across the habitat units. All surveys were carried out in early August. Following a baseline

survey in 2010, surveys were repeated in 2011, 2012 and 2013. All surveys were carried out

during weather suitable for bumblebee and butterfly activity. A diagram representing the

locations of each surveyed habitat unit is displayed in Figure 5.2.1.

Figure 5.2.1. Location of timed invertebrate survey areas (ISAs): 1- woodland planting; 2-

herbaceous + shrub planting pocket; 3- sand bank; 4- woodland planting + meadow; 5-

herbaceous + shrub planting; 6- rubble and feature planting; 7- brownfield area control.

119

In 2012 an additional baseline experiment was initiated. Three control survey areas were

established within a more traditional soft landscaped area of the Barking Riverside Phase 1

development (Figure 5.2.2).

Figure 5.2.2. Plan of Barking Riverside site. Red circle represents the location of the area

of the brownfield landscaping trial. Yellow circle represents the location of the soft

landscaping survey areas.

The soft landscaping control areas were designated as ISA8, ISA9 and ISA10 (Figure 5.2.3).

All areas were within the landscaping of the Rivergate Community Centre. This area was

selected as it was a more secure area for the use of pit fall trapping techniques than other

public access areas of the development. It was also selected because of its proximity to the

brownfield landscaping experiment. Similarly to the brownfield landscaping areas, the soft

landscaping survey areas were also in close proximity to undeveloped brownfield areas of the

Barking Riverside site.

Invertebrate survey areas ISA8 and ISA9 corresponded to soft landscaped areas planted with

trees and ornamental grasses then mulched. ISA10 corresponded to an amenity grass area

with tree planting. All three were considered to be typical of soft urban landscaping. Fixed -

point photo locations were also established for the soft landscaping control areas and stereo

fixed-point photos were taken during the 2012 surveys. Photos, details of fixed-point

locations, and floral records for ISAs 8,9 and 10 are given below.

120

Figure 5.2.3. Aerial photo of the Rivergate Community Centre soft landscaping

invertebrate survey areas. The yellow polygons represent the extent of the soft landscaping

insect survey areas. Background image © Bing Base map. Map produced using ArcGIS 10.1

(ESRI).

121

Fixed-point data: ISA8 Location: TQ 46327 82271

Camera bearing: 148°

Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Hart 's tongue (Asplenium scolopendrium), Ornamental grass

Colonised ground flora - Chenopodium album, Hirschfeldia incana, Senecio jacobaea,

Sonchus asper, Wood avens (Geum urbanum ), Common orache (Atriplex patula),

Chenopium rubra, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Sonchus arvensis, Butterbur (Petasites

hybridus), Epilobium tetragonum, Senecio inaquidens, Persicaria maculosa, Urtica dioica,

American willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum), Solanum nigrum, Sonchus oleraceous, Nettle-

leaved goosefoot (Chenopodiastrum murale), Calystegia sepium, Parietaria officinalis,

Cirsium arvense.

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Crataegus monogyna, Hazel (Corylus avellana), Acer campestre

Colonised shrubs - Buddleia davidii, Rubus fruticosus

Tree layer

Planted trees - Corylus avellana, Betula pendula

122



Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Ornamental grass x 2 spp

Colonised ground flora - Geum urbanum, Sonchus asper, Cirsium arvense, Epilobium

ciliatum, Hirschfeldia incana, Chenopodium rubra, Chenopodium album, Atriplex patula,

Tripleurospermum inodorum, Chenopodiastrum murale, Urtica dioica, Sonchus oleraceous,

Senecio jacobaea, Parietaria officinalis, Senecio inaequidens, Common reed (Phragmites

australis), Many-seeded goosefoot (Chenopodium polyspermum), Great willowherb

(Epilobium hirsutum).

Shrub layer

Planted shrubs - Crataegus monogyna, Corylus avellana, Acer campestre, Red currant

(Ribes rubrum)

Colonised shrubs - Buddleia davidii

Tree layer: Planted trees - Alder (Alnus glutinosa), Corylus avellana, Betula pendula, Wild

cherry (Prunus avium), Oak spp (Quercus spp)

123



Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Lolium spp, Festuca spp, Poa spp

Colonised ground flora - Brassica spp, Malva sylvestris, Picris echioides

Tree layer

Planted trees - Betula pendula, Prunus avium

On returning to the soft landscaping ISAs for the 2013 surveys, it was found that ISA8 and

ISA9 had received no management in the intervening period and thus were overgrown and

not typical of ornamental soft landscaping. As such, two new areas were designated within

the Rivergate Centre's landscaping. These were classified at ISA8a and ISA9a. The locatio n

of these can be seen on Figure 5.2.3. ISA8a was a rain garden feature comprising trees,

ornamental grasses and mulch. ISA9a was a tree-planted amenity grass area with small

ornamental grass rain gardens at either end. Images of Invertebrate Survey Areas ISA8a and

ISA9 are included below.

124

Fixed-point data: ISA8a Location: TQ 46320 82334


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Soft rush (Juncus effusus), Ornamental grass x 2 spp

Colonised ground flora - Chenopodium album, Sonchus oleraceous, Taraxacum spp,

Polygonum aviculare, Senecio inaquidens, Epilobium tetragonum, Medicago lupulina, Fescue

spp, Rumex conglomeratus, Sonchus arvensis, Malva sylvestris

Tree layer

Planted trees - Betula pendula

125

Fixed-point data: ISA9a Location: TQ 46358 82345


Synusia identified

Herbaceous layer

Planted ground flora - Ornamental grass

Colonised ground flora - Stellaria media, Sonchus oleraceous, Parietaria officinalis,

Chenopodium album, Picris echioides, Fescue spp, Fig-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium

ficifolium), Senecio inaequidens, Malva sylvestris, Sonchus arvensis, Plantago lanceolata,

Sonchus asper, Brassica spp, Lesser swinecress (Coronopus didymus), Chenopodium

rubrum, Picris hieracioides, Rumex spp, Epilobium tetragonum, Trifolium repens

Shrub layer

Colonised shrubs - Rubus fruticosus

Tree layer

Planted trees - Apple tree (Malus domestica var.), Pear tree (Pyrus communis var.) , Betula

pendula

126

Average timed counts

In 2010 and 2011 timed invertebrate survey walks were carried out in each of the brownfield

landscaping insect survey areas ISA1 to ISA6 and the neighbouring brownfield landscaping

area ISA7. In 2012 and 2013 these surveys were extended to also include the soft

landscaping survey areas ISAs 8 to 10.

Due to the timed observational methodology, it was only possible to record easily identifiable

species during the timed counts. At the Barking Riverside office landscaping site this

comprised almost exclusively bumblebee (Bombus) species and butterfly (Lepidoptera)

species. Comparisons of the average timed counts for bumblebees and butterflies within each

of the six key habitat areas in 2010 to 2013 are presented in Figures 5.2.4 and 5.2.5. Also

included are timed counts for the brownfield area ISA7 and soft landscaping control areas

ISA8, 9 and 10.

Figure 5.2.4. Average timed bumblebee counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA),

Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number of surveys at each

area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout each habitat area. ISAs 1 to 6

represent brownfield landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of

brownfield land. ISAs 8 to 10 represent soft landscaping areas. Error bars represent the

standard error of the mean.

127

Of the brownfield landscaped areas, substantial differences were recorded in bumblebee

timed counts dependent upon the type of habitat pocket and available flora at the time of the

surveys:

ISA 1 (a mulched woodland pocket area) - recorded no bumblebees during the 2010 survey

and then very few bumblebees during the 2011 and 2012 surveys. In 2013, substantially

higher numbers of bumble bees were recorded. This appeared to be representative of the

slow colonisation of this area with ground flora cover. However, numbers in 2013 were still

low compared to the highest numbers recorded across other ISAs.

ISA 2 (herbaceous and shrub planting pockets) - recorded very low numbers of bumblebees

in 2010 and 2011 followed by increasing numbers in 2012 and 2013. Again this appeared to

be representative of the slow colonisation of this area with ground flora cover and numbers

being low compared to the highest numbers recorded across other ISAs.

ISA 3 (sand bank, meadow planting and planting pockets) - between 2010 and 2012 this ISA

consistently recorded the highest bumblebee numbers of all of the brownfield landscaping

ISAs. Numbers were also higher than on the brownfield survey area (ISA7) for 2011 and

2012). Numbers on ISA 3 dropped considerably between the 2012 and 2013 surveys.

ISA 4 (woodland planting with wildflower meadow area) - bumblebee numbers increased

consistently from 2010 to 2012. However, by 2013, numbers had returned to levels similar to

those recorded during the 2010 baseline survey.

ISA 5 (herbaceous and shrub planting) - very low numbers in 2010 followed by a huge

increase in 2011 as the wildflower meadow area developed. Numbers dropped slightly in

2012 before declining markedly by the time of the 2013 survey.

ISA 6 (rubble and feature planting) - consistently high bumblebee numbers within this ISA due

to the abundant flowers of the ornamental landscaping and very gradual wildflower

colonisation of the rubble areas.

ISA 7 (brownfield area control) - consistently high bumblebee numbers on the brownfield

control area peaking in 2013. This indicated that declines in bumblebee numbers on other

ISAs in 2013 were not due to general bumblebee numbers being low across the Barking

Riverside site, but rather an indicator of habitat quality in relation to current management.

128

ISA 8 (tree hedge and ornamental planting soft landscaped area in 2012 changing to a

similarly landscaped ornamental grass rain garden in 2013) - bumblebee numbers were

consistently low on these areas, presumably due to the lack of suitable forage.

ISA 9 (tree hedge and ornamental planting soft landscaped area in 2012 changing to a tree,

amenity grass and small ornamental planted rain garden in 2013) - bumblebee numbers were

consistently low on these areas, presumably due to the lack of suitable forage.

ISA 10 (tree hedge and amenity grass area) - no bumblebees were recorded on this area,

presumably due to the lack of suitable forage.

Figure 5.2.5. Average timed butterfly counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA),

Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number of surveys at each

area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout each habitat area. ISAs 1 to 6

represent brownfield landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of

brownfield land. ISAs 8 to 10 represent soft landscaping areas. Error bars represent the

standard error of the mean.

129

Consistent patterns were recorded for butterfly numbers across the brownfield landscaping

ISAs. ISAs 1 to 6 all demonstrated a year-on-year increase in average butterfly numbers

between 2010 and 2013. The only exception to this was a slight drop in numbers between

2011 and 2012 on ISA6 before increasing again in 2013. ISA2 (herbaceous and shrub

planting pockets), ISA3 (sand bank, meadow planting and planting pockets), ISA4 (woodland

planting with wildflower meadow area) and ISA5 (herbaceous and shrub planting) recorded

the highest numbers. Butterflies were particularly associated with the wildflower meadow

areas in these ISAs.

ISA 7 (brownfield area control) - consistently high butterfly numbers were recorded on the

brownfield control area peaking in 2013. There was a dip in number between 2011 and 2012,

but numbers in 2012 remained at a level higher than most of the brownfield landscaping ISAs.

ISA 8 (tree hedge and ornamental planting soft landscaped area in 2012 changing to a

similarly landscaped ornamental grass rain garden in 2013) - butterfly numbers were slightly

higher in 2013 than in 2012, but numbers remained well below levels recorded on the

brownfield landscaping ISAs.

ISA 9 (tree hedge and ornamental planting soft landscaped area in 2012 changing to a tree,

amenity grass and small ornamental planted rain garden in 2013) - butterfly numbers were

slightly higher in 2012 than in 2013. For both years numbers were below levels recorded on

the brownfield landscaping ISAs.

ISA 10 (tree hedge and amenity grass area) - no butterflies were recorded on this area

presumably due to lack of suitable habitat.

Species diversity

In addition to number of individuals, enhancing biodiversity was a key impetus for the

development of the landscaping at the Barking Riverside offices. Figures 5.2.6 and 5.2.7

represent the diversity of bumblebee and butterfly species at each of the ISAs observed

during the timed surveys.

130

Figure 5.2.6. Total number of species of bumblebee observed at each invertebrate

survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number

of surveys at each area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout the habitat

area. ISAs1 to 6 represent landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of

brownfield land. ISAs 8 to 10 represent soft landscaping areas. Due to the difficulty of

distinguishing the species whilst in the field, Bombus terrestris and Bombus lucorum were

recorded as the aggregated group B. terrestris/lucorum agg.

Bumblebee species diversity demonstrated similar patterns to that for average number of

individuals. ISAs1 and 2 recorded a general increase between 2010 and 2013 whilst ISAs 3,

4, and 5 showed initial increases followed by declines by the time of the 2013 surveys. The

largely ornamental planted ISA6 recorded consistently high diversity with either 4 or 5 species

recorded each year. The brownfield area ISA7 consistently recorded the highest species

diversity with only ISAs 3 and 6 recording equally high diversity.

In total, eight species of bumblebee were recorded using the brownfield landscaping: B.

terrestris/lucorum agg., B. lapidarius, B. pascuorum, B. hypnorum, B. hortorum, B. pratorum

and the UKBAP priority species B. humilis and B. sylvarum. Whilst only one B. sylvarum

individual was recorded on the landscaping (in 2012), B. humilis numbers were high

compared to other sites in the region (personal observations).

131

Bumble species diversity was substantially lower on the soft landscaping ISA survey areas.

Only one species of bumblebee was recorded on the soft landscaped ISAs, the nationally

ubiquitous generalist species group B. terrestris/lucorum agg.

Figure 5.2.7. Total number of species of butterfly observed at each invertebrate survey

area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number of

surveys at each area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout the habitat

area. ISAs1 to 6 represent landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of

brownfield land. ISAs 8 to 10 represent soft landscaping areas.

Butterfly species diversity demonstrated similar patterns to that for average number of

individuals with a general trend of gradually increasing diversity annually from 2010 to 2013

on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6). Highest species diversity on the brownfield

landscaping (7 species) was recorded in 2013 on ISAs 4 (woodland planting with wildflower

meadow area) and 6 (rubble and feature planting). Species diversity on the brownfield

landscaping and the brownfield survey area (ISA7) were similar although the highest diversity

of any ISA (9 species) was recorded on ISA7 in 2013.

In total 11 species of butterfly were recorded using the brownfield landscaping: meadow

brown (Maniola jurtina), painted lady (Vanessa cardui ), red admiral (Vanessa atalanta), small

white (Pieris rapae), common blue (Polyommatus icarus), gatekeeper (Pyronia tithonus ),

132

large white (Pieris brassicae), small skipper (Thymelicus sylvestris), brimstone (Gonepteryx

rhamni), peacock (Aglais io) and small tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae). The only species

recorded on the brownfield area (ISA7) not recorded on the landscaping was clouded yellow

(Colias croceus).

Butterfly species diversity was substantially lower on the soft landscaping ISA survey areas

(ISAs 8, 9 and 10). Only three species of butterfly were recorded on these areas, small white,

large white and common blue.

Mann-Whitney U analysis of timed counts

To assess whether there were significant differences between the timed counts of

bumblebees and butterflies on the brownfield landscaped area and the soft landscaping areas

of the Baking Riverside site during the 2012 and 2013 surveys, timed count data was

analysed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U exact tests (Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2). Non-

parametric analysis was used due to the small sample sizes (n = 10) involved.

Table 5.2.1 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for bumblebee counts

on the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.

Table 5.2.1. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed

counts of all bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft

landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013. Timed counts for

each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with a combined

total for all soft landscaping ISAs to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping

habitat type. For ISAs 1 to 6 n = 10 for the combined soft landscaping ISAs n = 30. p values in

red represent those that were significantly different at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.

Soft landscaping (ISAs 8, 9 and 10)

2012 2013

p Direction of significance p Direction of significance

Bro

wn

fiel

d

lan

dsc

apin

g

ISA 1 p = 0.082 N/S p < 0.001 ISA 1

ISA 2 p = 0.003 ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA 2

ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA 3

ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA 4

ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA 5

ISA 6 p < 0.001 ISA 6 p < 0.001 ISA 6

133

Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there was a significantly greater number of

bumblebees on each of the brownfield habitat inspired landscaping ISAs than the soft

landscaping ISAs in 2013. This was also true for the 2012 bumblebee survey with the

exception of one of the brownfield landscaping ISA (ISA1). ISA1 (a mulched woodland pocket

area) appeared to be one of the slower landscaping pockets to colonise and this lack of

available forage is likely to explain the lack of a significant difference in 2012.




counts of all butterflies on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft







2012 2013


Bro

wn

fiel

d

lan

dsc

apin

g

ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA1 p < 0.001 ISA1

ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA2 p < 0.001 ISA2

ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p < 0.001 ISA3

ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA4 p < 0.001 ISA4

ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA5 p < 0.001 ISA5

ISA 6 p = 0.296 N/S p = 0.001 ISA6

Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there was also a significantly greater number of

butterflies on each of the brownfield habitat inspired landscaping ISAs than the soft

landscaping ISAs in 2013. This was also true for the 2012 bumblebee survey with the

exception of one of the brownfield landscaping ISA (ISA6). ISA6 (rubble and feature planting)

was one of the more open landscaping pockets with the rubble aggregate colonising slowly.

Butterfly numbers appeared to correlate with the development of grassy swards so it is not

unexpected that ISA6 would have lower butterfly numbers than other brownfield landscaping

ISAs.

134

To assess whether there were significant differences between the diversity of species

recorded during timed counts of bumblebees and butterflies on the brownfield landscaped

area and the soft landscaping areas of the Baking Riverside site during the 2012 and 2013

surveys, timed count data was analysed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U exact tests

(Tables 5.2.3 and 5.2.4). Non-parametric analysis was used due to the small sample sizes (n

= 10) involved.

Table 5.2.3 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for bumblebee diversity



counts of bumblebee diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft







2012 2013


Bro

wn

fiel

d

lan

dsc

apin

g

ISA 1 p = 0.148 N/S p < 0.001 ISA1

ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA2 p < 0.001 ISA2

ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p < 0.001 ISA3

ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA4 p < 0.001 ISA4

ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA5 p < 0.001 ISA5

ISA 6 p < 0.001 ISA6 p < 0.001 ISA6

Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there was also a significant difference in terms of

the diversity of bumblebee species recorded on the brownfield landscaping and the soft

landscaping. Significantly greater bumblebee species diversity was recorded on the

brownfield landscaping than the soft landscaping for all ISAs in 2013 and for all but one ISA

in 2012. The only ISA that was not significantly greater was ISA1 for which no significant

difference was recorded. As discussed previously, this may have been due to ISA1 being

slow to colonise with non-planted flora.

Table 5.2.4 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for butterfly diversity on

the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.

135

Table 5.2.4. Mann-Whitney U exact tests asse ssing the difference between the timed

counts of butterfly diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft







2012 2013


Bro

wn

fiel

d

lan

dsc

apin

g

ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA1 p < 0.001 ISA1

ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA2 p < 0.001 ISA2

ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p < 0.001 ISA3

ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA4 p < 0.001 ISA4

ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA5 p < 0.001 ISA5

ISA 6 p = 0.246 N/S p = 0.001 ISA6

Similarly to bumblebee diversity, Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there was also a

significant difference in terms of the diversity of butterfly species recorded on the brownfield

landscaping and the soft landscaping. Significantly greater butterfly species diversity was

recorded on the brownfield landscaping than the soft landscaping for all ISAs in 2013 and for

all but one ISA in 2012. The only ISA that was not significantly greater was again ISA1 for

which no significant difference was recorded.

An additional assessment was made to investigate how the brownfield landscaping compared

with a typical brownfield area on the Barking Riverside site. Timed count data for 2010, 2011,

2012 and 2013 was analysed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U exact tests (Tables

5.2.5 and 5.2.6). Non-parametric analysis was used due to the small sample sizes (n = 10)

involved.


on the brownfield landscaping areas and brownfield area.

136


counts of all bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the

brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Timed counts for each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared

with the brownfield habitat ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping

habitat type. For all ISAs n = 10 . Significance was assessed at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.

Brownfield habitat survey area (ISA7)

2010 2011


Bro

wn

fiel

d la

nd

scap

ing

ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7

ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7

ISA 3 p = 0.014 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA3

ISA 4 p = 0.002 ISA7 p = 0.690 N/S

ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA5

ISA 6 p = 0.381 N/S p < 0.001 ISA6

2012 2013


ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA7 p = 0.001 ISA7

ISA 2 p = 0.02 ISA7 p = 0.001 ISA7

ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p = 0.006 ISA7

ISA 4 p = 0.069 N/S p < 0.001 ISA7

ISA 5 p = 0.038 ISA5 p < 0.001 ISA7

ISA 6 p = 0.516 N/S p = 0.302 N/S

Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed a changing pattern of significance between the

brownfield habitat ISAs (ISA1 to 6) and the brownfield area (ISA7) over time. During the

baseline survey in 2010, significantly greater bumblebee numbers were recorded on the

brownfield habitat area of the Barking Riverside site than the brownfield landscaping pockets

ISAs1 to 5. The only exception to this was the rubble and ornamental planted ISA6 for which

no significant difference was recorded. This was presumably due to some of the ornamentals

planted in this area being particularly attractive as a nectar source for bumblebees. On ISAs 1

to 6 the vegetation was not well developed in 2010 (as can be seen in the fixed-point photos),

which would explain the low bumblebee counts.

In 2011, after an additional year of vegetation development, only ISAs 1 and 2 recorded

significantly lower bumblebee numbers than the brownfield habitat. ISA4 recorded no

137

significant difference, and ISAs 3, 5 and 6 recorded numbers significantly higher than the

neighbouring brownfield habitat.

A similar pattern was also observed in 2012 with ISAs 1 and 2 recording significantly lower

bumblebee numbers than the brownfield habitat, ISAs 4 and 6 recording no significant

difference, and ISAs 3 and 5 recording numbers significant ly higher. By 2013 this pattern had

again reverted back to one similar to the baseline survey with ISAs 1 to 5 all recording

significantly lower bumblebee numbers than the brownfield habitat. ISA6 was the only ISA to

differ from this pattern with no significant difference recorded in the bumblebee numbers

between the brownfield habitat and the brownfield landscaping.

These results indicated that floral availability for foraging bumblebees on the brownfield

landscaping was at its most optimal in 2011 and 2012 but by the time of the 2013 surveys

management was too infrequent to maintain an open flower-rich sward typical of brownfield

open mosaic habitat.

Table 5.2.6 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for butterfly counts on

the brownfield landscaping areas and brownfield area.


counts of all butterflies on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the brownfield

habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Timed counts for

each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with the

brownfield habitat ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping habitat type.

For all ISAs n = 10 . Significance was assessed at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.


2010 2011


Bro

wn

fiel

d la

nd

scap

ing ISA 1 p = 0.015 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7

ISA 2 p = 0.013 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7

ISA 3 p = 0.004 ISA7 p = 0.045 ISA7

ISA 4 p = 0.168 N/S p = 0.099 N/S

ISA 5 p = 0.004 ISA7 p = 0.049 ISA7

ISA 6 p = 0.003 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7

138

Brownfield survey area (ISA7)

2012 2013


Bro

wn

fiel

d la

nd

scap

ing ISA 1 p = 0.277 N/S p = 0.002 ISA7

ISA 2 p = 0.010 ISA2 p = 0.809 N/S

ISA 3 p = 0.087 N/S p = 0.381 N/S

ISA 4 p = 0.002 ISA4 p = 0.149 N/S

ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA5 p = 0.867 N/S

ISA 6 p = 0.001 ISA6 p = 0.002 ISA7

Similarly to bumblebee abundance, Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed a changing pattern

of significance between the brownfield landscaping ISAs (ISA1 to 6) and the brownfield

habitat (ISA7) over time for butterfly numbers. For the first two years of survey, the brownfield

habitat recorded significantly higher butterfly numbers than the brownfield landscaping areas

with the exception of ISA4 (woodland planting with wildflower meadow area) for which no

significant difference was recorded.

By the time of the 2012 survey this pattern had reversed, with significantly greater numbers of

butterflies recorded on all but two of the brownfield landscaping ISAs than the brownfield

habitat. The exceptions to this were ISAs 1 and 3 for which there were no significant

differences in butterfly numbers with the brownfield habitat. In 2013, another shift in pattern

emerged with all but two of the brownfield habitat ISAs showing no significant difference in

butterfly numbers to the brownfield habitat. The two exceptions to this were ISAs 1 and 6

which recorded significantly fewer butterflies than the brownfield habitat. Overall, this

indicated that the landscaping may have been in an optimal state for butterflies at the time of

the 2012 survey and that by 2013 management was too infrequent to maintain an open sward

typical of the brownfield habitat.

To assess whether there were significant differences between the diversity of species

recorded during timed counts of bumblebees and butterflies on the brownfield landscaped

area and the brownfield habitat during the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 surveys, timed count

data was analysed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U exact tests (Tables 5.2.7 and

5.2.8). Non-parametric analysis was used due to the small sample sizes (n = 10) involved.

Table 5.2.7 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for bumblebee diversity


139


counts of bumblebee diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the



with the brownfield habitat ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield la ndscaping



2010 2011


Bro

wn

fiel

d la

nd

scap

ing

ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7

ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7

ISA 3 p = 0.022 ISA7 p = 0.007 ISA3

ISA 4 p = 0.004 ISA7 p = 1.000 N/S

ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA7 p = 0.083 N/S

ISA 6 p = 0.875 N/S p = 0.019 ISA7

2012 2013


ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA7 p = 0.450 N/S

ISA 2 p = 0.047 ISA7 p = 0.235 N/S

ISA 3 p = 0.016 ISA3 p = 0.039 ISA7

ISA 4 p = 0.700 N/S p = 0.066 N/S

ISA 5 p = 0.738 N/S p = 0.363 N/S

ISA 6 p = 0.066 N/S p = 0.067 N/S

Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed that bumblebee species diversity has normalised

between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield habitat area (ISA7) over the

duration of the surveys. In 2010 all but ISA 6 recorded significantly lower bumblebe e diversity

than the brownfield habitat area. ISA6 recorded no significant difference. In 2011, only four of

the ISAs recorded significantly lower bumblebee diversity than the brownfield habitat area.

ISAs 4 and 5 recorded no significant difference. In 2012, three of the brownfield landscaping

ISAs (4, 5 and 6) recorded no significant difference in bumblebee diversity to the brownfield

habitat and ISA3 recorded a significantly greater diversity of bumblebee species. In 2013 only

one brownfield landscaping ISA (ISA3) recorded a significantly lower bumblebee species

diversity than the brownfield habitat area. All other ISAs recorded no significant difference.

140

Table 5.2.8 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for butterfly diversity on

the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.


counts of butterfly diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the



with the brownfield habitat ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping



2010 2011


Bro

wn

fiel

d la

nd

scap

ing

ISA 1 p = 0.076 N/S p = 0.056 N/S

ISA 2 p = 0.538 N/S p = 0.036 ISA7

ISA 3 p = 0.155 N/S p = 0.133 N/S

ISA 4 p = 0.076 N/S p = 1.000 N/S

ISA 5 p = 0.079 N/S p = 0.392 N/S ISA 6

p = 0.030 ISA7 p = 0.003 ISA7

2012 2013


ISA 1 p = 0.193 N/S p = 0.001 ISA7 ISA 2

p = 0.120 N/S p = 0.330 N/S ISA 3 p = 0.875 N/S p = 0.468 N/S ISA 4 p = 0.059 N/S p = 0.553 N/S ISA 5 p = 0.706 N/S p = 0.005 ISA7 ISA 6

p = 0.001 ISA7 p = 0.018 ISA7

Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed little difference between the butterfly species diversity

in the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield habitat ISA. For the years 2010, 2011

and 2012 the diversity counts on the majority of the brownfield landscaping ISAs were not

significantly different from the brownfield habitat ISA. The exceptions to this being ISA 6 in

2010, 2011 and 2012 and ISA 2 in 2011. During the 2013 surveys, ISAs 1, 5 and 6 were all

recorded as having significantly lower butterfly species diversity than ISA7. The other ISAs

were all recorded as being not significantly different.

141

= ornamental planting

= colonised or from wildflower seeding

= no vegetation- based observations

Summary of vegetation use

In addition to number and diversity of bumblebees and butterflies visiting each survey area, a

record was made of the behaviour of each individual at the time of observation. These

records were used to generate a proportional picture of flower use within each habitat type for

each year of the surveys. Figures 5.2.8 to 5.2.11 represent the results for bumblebees:

ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.8. Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield

habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010. Observations recorded during 5 minute

timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield landscaping (i) n =

128 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 74.

142




ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.9. Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield




143




iii)

ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.10. Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping

ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012. Observations

recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the

brownfield landscaping (i) n = 355, for the soft landscaping (ii) n = 38, and for the brownfield

habitat (iii) n = 54.

144




iii)

ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.11. Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping



brownfield landscaping (i) n = 299 sightings, for the soft landscaping (ii) n = 12, and for the

brownfield habitat (iii) n = 106.

145




Figures 5.2.12 to 5.2.15 represent the results for butterflies:

ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.12. Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield




146




ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.13. Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield




147




iii)

ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.14. Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping



brownfield landscaping (i) n = 329, for the soft landscaping (ii) n = 21, and for the brownfield

habitat (iii) n = 36.

148




iii)

ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.15. Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping



brownfield landscaping (i) n = 579 sightings, for the soft landscaping (ii) n = 22, and for the

brownfield habitat (iii) n = 111.

149

Although certain floral species seemed to dominate preferences, overall, bumblebee and

butterflies were recorded using a broad range of floral species. With no specific measure of

relative abundance of floral within the study, it was impossible to prove that observed floral

visits were not relative to floral species abundance. However, both bumblebees and

butterflies were observed by surveyors actively avoiding certain available flowers in

preference for other species. There are also numerous studies that demonstrate that

bumblebees and butterflies actively choose to visit certain floral species over other available

species to maximise the reward on their foraging visits ((Ranta and Lundberg 1980, Williams

1989, Goulson and Darvill 2004, Ellis 2006, Goulson and Cory 2008, Hanley et al., 2008,

Goulson et al. 2009, Connop et al. 2010, Yurtsever et al. 2010). As such, proportion of floral

visits recorded in Figures 5.2.8 to 5.2.11 are taken as being representative of the relative

choices of foraging bumblebees and butterflies on the Barking Riverside site.

In terms of bumblebee forage use, during the landscaping establishment phase bumblebees

appeared to be very dependent upon ornamental planting species such as Erysimum bicolour

and Verbena bonariensis. Hirschfeldia incana was the only non-planted species that made up

a substantial proportion of all recorded foraging visits. By 2011, this pattern had reversed and

native wildflowers dominated the floral visits on the brownfield landscaping, particularly

Fabaceae species such as Trifolium pratense and Lotus corniculatus. This change in pattern

appeared to coincide with the development of the wildflower meadow areas (as can be seen

in the fixed point photos). Nevertheless, the planted ornamentals Erysimum bicolor,

Lavandula angustifolia and Verbena bonariensis still comprised approximately a quarter of all

observed bumblebee forage visits. Similarly to the brownfield landscaping, a Fabaceae

(Galega officinalis) comprised the most bumblebee visits on the brownfield area of the site.

In 2012 a similar pattern was observed with Trifolium pratense and Lotus corniculatus

comprising the majority of observed floral visits. The proportion of visits to ornamentals had

reduced. Comparing this to the observed floral visits on the soft landscaped area revealed a

substantial contrast with no bumblebees being recorded as foraging on the soft landscaping

area. All bumblebees recorded were observed in flight. A similar pattern was observed in

2013 with all bumblebees on ISA 8 to 10 recorded as either in flight or resting on ornamental

grasses. None were recorded foraging on the soft landscaped areas. On the brownfield

landscaping areas the proportion of visits to ornamental planted species had increased again,

but wildflower species, particularly Lotus corniculatus, remained as the most commonly

visited floral species.

In terms of butterfly observations, butterflies were much more commonly seen not actively

foraging with the majority of observations on the brownfield landscaping, brownfield habitat

and soft landscaping being individuals in flight for all four survey years. Of the butterflies

recorded on plants (whether resting or actively foraging), the majority of those visited were

150

native wildflowers. Visits to planted ornamentals comprised very few of the observed visits

with Buddleia davidii the largest proportion of non-wildflower visits on the brownfield

landscaping in 2010. The only other ornamentals recorded as visited were Lavandula

angustifolia, Verbena bonariensis, Rosmarinus prostates and Rosa arvensis.

In terms of wildflowers, again the Fabaceae were the most frequently visited group with Lotus

corniculatus and Medicago lupulina most commonly visited on the brownfield landscaping

ISAs and Galega officinalis on the brownfield area. Other notable wildflowers for butterfly

visits include Hirschfeldia incana and Leucanthemum vulgare on both the brownfield

landscaping and the brownfield area.

UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species

From the timed surveys, two conservation priority bumblebee species were recorded, the

brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis) and the shrill carder bee (Bombus sylvarum) .

Only one observation of Bombus sylvarum was recorded. In contrast, Bombus humilis was a

regular visitor to the brownfield landscaping and, due to its specific forage requirements

(Connop et al. 2010), it should be viewed as a good indicator of habitat quality for

bumblebees across the site. As such, average timed counts (Figure 5.2.16) and detailed

analysis of annual forage use (Figures 5.2.17 to 5.2.20) by B. humilis were carried out.

Figure 5.2.16. Average timed Bombus humilis counts at each invertebrate survey area

(ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number of surveys at

each area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout each habitat area. ISA1

to ISA6 represent brownfield landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of

brownfield land. No B. humilis were recorded on the soft landscaped areas (ISA 8 to 10).

Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

151




ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.17. Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and

brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010. Observations recorded during

5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield

landscaping (i) n = 19 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 3.

152




ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.18. Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and

brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011. Observations recorded during

5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield

landscaping (i) n = 145 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 2.

153




ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.19. Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft

landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012.

Observations recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA).

For the brownfield landscaping (i) n = 189 sightings and for the brownfield habitat (iii) n = 12.

No observations of B. humilis were recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs 8 to 10.

154




ii)

i)

Figure 5.2.20. Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft

landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013.

Observations recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA).

For the brownfield landscaping (i) n = 40 sightings and for the brownfield habitat (iii) n = 2. No

observations were recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs 8 to 10.

155

Average timed counts of B. humilis individuals demonstrated that ISAs 3, 4 and 5 recorded

the highest numbers during the 2011 and 2012 surveys. Numbers were considerably lower on

these ISAs during 2010 and 2013 indicating that habitat quality was not optimal during these

survey periods. Numbers on these ISAs were consistently higher than on the brownfield

survey area ISA7. Mann-Whitney U exact test were used to assess whether there was a

significant difference in the timed B. humilis counts between the brownfield landscaping and

brownfield areas (Table 5.2.9).


counts of Bombus humilis individuals on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with the

brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Timed

counts for each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with

the brownfield landscaping ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping


Brownfield survey area (ISA7)

2010 2011


Bro

wn

fiel

d la

nd

scap

ing

ISA 1 p = 0.211 N/S p = 0.211 N/S

ISA 2 p = 0.211 N/S p = 0.211 N/S

ISA 3 p = 0.211 N/S p < 0.001 ISA3

ISA 4 p = 0.100 N/S p = 0.006 ISA4

ISA 5 p = 0.582 N/S p < 0.001 ISA5

ISA 6 p = 0.005 ISA6 p = 0.861 N/S

2012 2013


ISA 1 p = 0.017 ISA7 p = 0.474 N/S ISA 2

p = 0.146 N/S p = 0.512 N/S ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p = 0.721 N/S ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA4 p = 0.197 N/S ISA 5 p = 0.004 ISA5 p = 0.350 N/S ISA 6

p = 0.131 N/S p = 0.008 ISA5

Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there were significantly greater B. humilis numbers

on ISAs 3, 4 and 5 than on the brownfield habitat area ISA7 in 2011 and 2012. The brownfield

habitat (ISA7) only recorded significantly greater B. humilis numbers than the brownfield

156

landscaping for a single ISA (ISA1) in 2012. This demonstrated the quality of the brownfield

landscaping as a forage resource for this conservation priority bumblebee species. In stark

contrast to this, no B. humilis individuals were recorded on any of the soft landscaping ISAs.

In 2010 and 2013 ISA6 also recorded significantly higher B. humilis numbers than ISA7. The

relatively high numbers of B. humilis recorded on ISA6 were most likely due to the occurrence

of the ornamental species Lavandula angustifolia, Perovsk ia atriplicifolia and Verbena

bonariensis planted in this ISA. Interestingly, the abundance of B. humilis in ISA6 in 2010

and 2013 was the opposite pattern to ISAs 3, 4 and 5. This was perhaps indicative of B.

humilis individuals using the ornamentals of ISA6 to a greater extent when wildflower forage

availability was poor in ISAs 3, 4 and5.

Forage preference data (Figures 5.2.17 to 5.2.20) supports this theory as, during 2011 and

2012 the majority of B. humilis forage visits were recorded on wildflowers, Lotus corniculatus

and Trifolium pratense comprising the majority of these visits. Planted ornamentals comprised

a very low proportion of the forage visits for these two survey years. In contrast, ornamentals

comprised all of the recorded visits in 2010 and more than a third in 2013 when floral

availability was poor in the wildflower meadow areas of ISA 3, 4 and 5.

In the brownfield area another Fabaceae species, Galega officinalis, was recorded receiving

the majority of visits in 2011 and 2012. Additional species included Hirshfeldia incana, Ballota

nigra, Arctium minus and Cirsium arvense.

157

5.2.2 Sweep net surveys

A five minute sweep net survey was carried out within each of the invertebrate survey areas

(with the exception of the 2010 survey when 15 minute sweeps were carried out due to the

lack of established vegetation). Individuals caught were stored and returned to the laboratory

for identification. Individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus

other easily identifiable individuals were identified to species level. Where individuals from

these groups were present as juveniles or were particularly difficult to identify, they were

identified to a higher group level (e.g. genus, family or order). An overview of results is

presented here and full details are presented in Appendix 1:

2010

In total, 16 species were recorded during the timed sweep net surveys. Of these, two species

(Andrena dorsata and Eristalis intricarius) were only recorded on the brownfield control area.

The additional 4 species recorded on the control area were also recorded on the brownfield

landscaped areas along with 10 other species only recorded on the landscaped areas.

Species recorded varied between invertebrate survey areas, with survey areas 1, 4 and

control area 7 recording the highest numbers. Interestingly, landscaped survey areas 1 and 4

are the woodland landscaped areas, neither of which scored highly on the butterfly and

bumblebee timed counts. This indicated that the habitat variation incorporated into the

brownfield landscaping design may be having a beneficial effect on overall site biodiversity.

Of most interest from the sweep net surveys was the record of the solitary bee Andrena

nigriceps on the woodland landscaped area of ISA1. This was only the third modern record of

this bee in Essex and the first from the East Thames Corridor.

2011

In total 52 species were recorded during the timed sweep net surveys. Of these, seven

species (Anthocoris nemorum, Hippodamia variegate, Lasioglossum morio, Philanthus

triangulum, Reichertella geniculata, Sitona lineatus, Tiso vagans) were only recorded on the

brownfield control area. The additional 6 species recorded on the control area were also

recorded on the landscaped areas along with 39 other species only recorded on the

landscaped areas. Of the 52 species recorded, only one was previously recorded in the 2010

sweep net surveys. Whilst this represents a substantial net increase in the number of species

recorded during the sweep net surveys since 2010, it also means that 15 species recorded in

2010 were not recorded in 2011 including the rare record of the solitary bee Andrena

nigriceps.

158

Total number of species recorded varied between invertebrate survey areas, ISA1 recorded

the highest with 14 species and ISA 5 recorded the lowest with 7 species. Interestingly,

species recorded varied considerably between ISAs. This indicated that the habitat variation

incorporated into the brownfield landscaping design may be having a beneficial effect on

overall site biodiversity.

Of most interest from the sweep net surveys were the records of several species of

conservation concern. This included one RDB2 species (Philanthus triangulum - although this

species is becoming increasingly widespread and its status may need re -assessing), two

RDB3 species (Lasioglossum pauperatum, Lygus pratensis), four notable species and

thirteen local species (one of which was also an Essex Red Data species - Melitta leporina).

2012

In 2012, sweep net surveys were increased to include the soft landscaping control areas ISA

8, 9 and 10. In total 35 species were recorded during the sweep net surveys. Of these, three

were only recorded on the brownfield control area (Agalenatea redii, Rhagonycha fulva,

Sphenella marginata). The additional four species recorded on the brownfield control area

were also recorded on the brownfield landscaping along with 27 other species that were not

recorded on the brownfield control area. Of most interest in terms of the species recorded in

the brownfield landscaping sweep net surveys were one RDB2 species (Philanthus

triangulum - although this species is becoming increasingly widespread and its status may

need re-assessing) and 11 species of local conservation status.

Only six species were recorded on the soft landscaped areas. Four of these species were

also recorded on the brownfield landscaping and two were only recorded on soft landscapi ng.

Of these two, one was a species of local conservation status.

2013

For the 2013 surveys the methodology was changed so that, rather than one 5 minute sweep,

five timed sweeps of a minute each were used within each ISA in order to get a more

comparative record of invertebrate populations within the vegetation layer and to enable

statistical comparison. In addition, ISAs 8 and 9 were replaced with ISAs 8a and 9a as lack of

management in ISAs 8 and 9 meant that they were no longer typical of urban soft landscaping

(see Section 5.2.1).

In total, 114 species were identified to species level. Of these, one RDB3 species

(Lasioglossum pauperatum), one Notable/Na species (Lasioglossum pauxillum ), two

159

Notable/Nb species (Hippodamia variegata and Lasioglossum malachurum) and one

Notable/Nr species (Brachymeria minuta) were recorded on the brownfield landscaping. Of

these, only L. pauperatum and H. variegata were also recorded on the brownfield habitat and

only H. variegata was also recorded on the soft landscaping. RDB3 species Lasioglossum

morio was also recorded, but only on the brownfield habitat.

In addition, eleven locally distributed individuals were recorded on the brownfield landscaping.

Of these, three were also recorded on the brownfield habitat and only two were recorded on

the soft landscaping. Andrena flavipes was the only local species recorded on the brownfield

habitat that was not also recorded on the brownfield landscaping. The locally distributed

Anisosticta novemdecimpunctata was the only conservation interest species that was

recorded in the soft landscaping sweep net samples that was not also recorded on the

brownfield landscaping. In contrast, ten of the species of conservation importance recorded

on brownfield landscaping areas were not recorded on the brownfield habitat or soft

landscaping ISAs.

Invertebrate group diversity

Due to the standardised sampling effort between ISAs for the sweep net surveys, it was

possible to make direct comparisons between the invertebrate diversity supported within each

brownfield landscaping ISA, the brownfield habitat ISA and the soft landscaping ISAs. As only

target groups were identified to species level, invertebrate diversity comparisons were made

at a higher taxonomic grouping level. These groups comprised taxonomic orders and/or

higher functional taxanomic groups (Acari, Araneae, Coleoptera, Dermaptera, Diptera,

Gastropoda, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Opiliones, Orthoptera,

Psocoptera, Thysanoptera). Results for 2012 and 2013 are presented in Figures 5.2.21 and

5.2.22.

In the 2012 sweep net samples, with the exception of ISA6 (the rubble and ornamental

planting area), all brownfield landscaping ISAs were as diverse or more diverse than the

brownfield habitat area in terms of the number of invertebrate groups recorded. The same

was also true when the brownfield landscaping ISAs were compared to the soft landscaping

areas. Mann-Whitney U exact tests were carried out to assess whether there was a significant

difference between the invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping and the soft

landscaping. No significant difference was recorded for the 2012 data.

160

Figure 5.2.21. Invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside sweep net samples,

2012. Graph represents the number of invertebrate groups collected in a single five minute

sweep net sample on each invertebrate survey area (ISA). ISAs 1 to 6 represent the

brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs 8 to 10

represent the soft landscaping areas.

Figure 5.2.22. Invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside sweep net samples,

2013. Graph represents the average number of invertebrate groups collected in five sweep

net samples of one minute each on each invertebrate survey area (ISA). ISAs 1 to 6

represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs

8 to 10 represent the soft landscaping areas. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

161

In the 2013 sweep net samples, when repeated samples were taken in each ISA, all of the

brownfield landscaping ISAs recorded an average invertebrate group diversity equivalent to or

greater than the brownfield habitat ISA. The brownfield landscaping ISAs all recorded a

higher average invertebrate group diversity greater than the soft landscaping ISAs. Mann-

Whitney U exact tests revealed no significant difference between the brownfield landscaping

ISAs and the brownfield habitat. In contrast, Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed a

significant difference between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the soft landscaping ISAs

(p < 0.001) in terms of average diversity.

More detailed analysis was carried out at the species level for the target groups Araneae,

Coleoptera and Hymenoptera. These groups were selected as they are considered to be

good indicators of habitat quality and key representatives of vegetation-dwelling invertebrate

diversity. Figure 5.2.23 shows the total number of species from each of the target groups

recorded in the sweep net samples.

Figure 5.2.23. Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species

identified in the sweep net samples at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Graph

represents the total number of species from within each target group and a cumulative total

for the sweep net samples from within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). ISAs 1 to 6

represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs

8a, 9a and10 represent the soft landscaping areas.

162

Highest combined numbers of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species were recorded

on the brownfield landscaping ISAs 2 and 5. The lowest were recorded on the soft

landscaping ISAs 8a, 9a and 10. Numbers were so low on the soft landscaping areas that

sweep net surveys on ISA 10 recorded no Araneae or Coleoptera species at all

Mann-Whitney U exact tests were carried out to assess whether there was a significant

difference between the target group species number between the sweep net samples on the

brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) and on the soft landscaping ISAs (8a, 9a and 10). No

significant difference was recorded for Araneae (p = 0.095), nor for Coleoptera (p = 0.19), but

there was found to be a significantly greater number of Hymenoptera species in the

brownfield landscaping sweep nets than those on the soft landscaping (p = 0.012). Similarly,

when Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species numbers were combined there were

significantly fewer species recorded on the soft landscaping than the brownfield landscaping

(p = 0.024).

In addition to species number of target groups in sweep net samples, rarity scores were

calculated for the conservation priority Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species caught

during the sweep net sampling in each ISA. Rarity scores were based on values used in

Natural England's Invertebrate Species-Habitat Information System (ISIS). Originally

developed for Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) for Sites of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI), ISIS can be used to recognise invertebrate assemblage types in species lists and

evaluate their nature conservation value (Lott, 2007; Drake et al., 2007). The scoring system

assigned during ISIS analysis assigns a score for each conservation priority species

dependent upon conservation status. Scores for each species comprise: RDB1+ Extinct =

16pts; RDB2 = 16pts; RDB3 = 8pts; Notable/Na = 4pts; Notable/Nb = 4pts; and Local = 2pts.

Figure 5.2.24 represents the rarity score totals for each ISA.

Rarity scores are intended to be a proportional measure of the conservation value of

invertebrate assemblages in relation to national conservation priorities. In relation to the

Barking Riverside landscaping sweep nets, the soft landscaping ISAs (8a, 9a and 10)

recorded the lowest rarity scores. Highest species rarity score were recorded on the

brownfield landscaping ISAs 2, 3 and 5 and on the brownfield habitat ISA 7. Rarity scores on

all brownfield landscaping ISAs were higher than those on the soft landscaping ISAs.

163

Figure 5.2.24. Total rarity scores for conservation priority Araneae, Coleoptera and

Hymenoptera species identified in the sweep net samples at Barking Riverside, August

2013. Graph represents the total species rarity scores for all conservation priority species

within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) using Natural England's ISIS invertebrate

assemblage assessment programme. Scores are a cumulative total for species recorded in

the five sweep net samples within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). ISAs 1 to 6 represent

the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs 8a, 9a

and10 represent the soft landscaping areas.

5.2.3 Pitfall trapping

In 2010 and 2011, pitfall traps were placed in a series of locations throughout the brownfield

landscaping and brownfield habitat invertebrate survey areas (ISAs) (Figure 5.2.25). Traps

were installed in June each year and were regularly emptied. Traps were left in situ until the

end of September. Traps were emptied and the invertebrates contained within were identified

and counted. Similarly to the sweep net surveys, individuals from target groups Araneae,

Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus other easily identifiable individuals were identified to

species level. Where individuals from these target groups were present as juveniles or were

particularly difficult to identify, they were identified to a higher group level (e.g. genus, family

or order).

As only target groups were identified to species level, other invertebrates found in traps were

catalogued at a higher taxonomic grouping level. These groups comprised taxonomic orders

and/or higher functional taxanomic groups (Acari, Araneae, Chilopoda, Coleoptera,

164

Collembola, Dermaptera, Diplopoda, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera,

Isopoda, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Oligochaeta, Orthoptera, Pseudoscorpionida, Psocoptera,

Symphlyla, Thysanoptera).

Due to losses of the large pit fall traps utilised in the 2010 and 2011 surveys, five small pitfall

traps were installed in each of the invertebrate survey areas for the 2012 and 2013 pit fall

surveys. Replication of smaller traps was used to mitigate trap loss by increasing the chances

that some traps would survive in each ISA. Such replication also made advanced statistical

analysis of results possible. In addition to ISAs 1 to 7, pitfall traps were also installed in the

soft landscaping control areas of the Barking Riverside development ISAs 8 to 10 (Figure

5.2.3). This was to enable comparison of the brownfield landscaping epigeal invertebr ate

diversity with that on more typical soft landscaping areas. Surveying was also targeted within

a two week window, at the end of July and beginning of August, to coincide with the other

survey methodologies on the landscaping.

Figure 5.2.25. Location of pitfall traps at Barking Riverside Office Landscaping: Traps

were located within the previously defined invertebrate survey areas (ISA1 - Woodland

planting; ISA 2- Herbaceous + shrub planting pocket; ISA 3- Sand bank; ISA 4- Woodland

planting; ISA 5- Herbaceous + Shrub planting; ISA 6- Rubble and feature planting; ISA 7-

Brownfield area control) plus an additional trap (ISA X – Grass + herbaceous near offices) was

located next to the offices and a green roof experiment area.

X

165

2010

Conservation priority species

A complete list of records from the 2010 pitfall traps is displayed in Table A2.1 (Appendix 2).

Unfortunately, two of the traps were lost due to repeated disturbance [ISA4 – woodland and

ISA7 – brownfield]. It was unclear as to why these were disturbed, but it was likely that it was

due to fox activity. No data was therefore available for these areas.

From the traps that were not disturbed, a series of key species of conservation concern were

identified from within the target groups identified to species level. Of the 23 spider species

identified, one was a proposed nationally notable (pNa) species (Zodarion italicum ), one was

a species of local importance (Agroeca inopina) and one was a currently undescribed species

found on several occasions within the southeast (Megalepthyphantes sp. nova.).

Of the 25 beetle species identified, 1 was a Red Data Book 2 (RDB2) species (Polistichus

connexus ), 4 were nationally scarce (Nb) species (Brachinus crepitans (Essex RDB),

Calathus ambiguus (Essex RDB), Harpalus ardosiacus and Notiophilus quadripunctatus

(Essex RDB)), 4 were very local species (Amara convexiuscula, Amara eurynota, Calathus

cinctus and Helophorus rufipes ) and 2 were local species (Calthus erratus and Phyllotreta

consobrina).


In additional to the species level identification, counts of invertebrate taxonomic groups within

each ISA pit fall were carried out. Figure 5.2.26 shows the total number of individuals recorded

in each survey area.

The sand bank area recorded the highest number of individuals of all of the survey areas,

substantially so when compared to the woodland and herbaceous areas ISA1 and ISA2. A

similar pattern could be seen when analysing the invertebrate diversity data (Figure 5.2.27).

The rubble (ISA6) , sand (ISA3) and herbaceous (ISA5) areas recorded a substantially higher

diversity of invertebrate groups than the other traps. The highest diversity being eight

invertebrate groups (Collembola, Hemiptera, Diptera, Araneae, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera,

Isopoda and Pulmonata) recorded in the ISA5 herbaceous trap. The woodland (ISA1) and

herbaceous (ISA2) areas recorded the lowest diversity of invertebrate groups.

166

Figure 5.2.26. Total number of invertebrates caught in pitfall traps, Barking Riverside

office landscaping, August 2010. Pitfall traps were positioned within each survey area for

the same duration to standardise sampling effort.

Figure 5.2.27. Total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each pitfall trap,

Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010. Number of orders/groups recorded in

each trap was used as an indicator of invertebrate diversity within each habitat unit. Pitfall

traps were positioned within each survey area for the same duration to standardise sampling

effort.

167

Target group diversity

The limited scope of this monitoring programme meant that it was not possible to identify all

invertebrates within the traps to species level. However, Araneae and Coleoptera individuals

were identified to this level. These target groups were selected as they are considered to be

good indicators of habitat quality and the frequency of capture of these two groups within the

pitfall traps was considered to be a good representation of overall ground dwelling

invertebrate biodiversity at the site. In total, 25 species of beetle and 23 species of spider

were recorded from all of the traps collectively.

In contrast to the overall invertebrate totals, the woodland area recorded the highest number

and diversity of spiders (Figures 5.2.28 and 5.2.29). Herbaceous area ISA2 also scored much

more highly for beetle and spider numbers and diversity than for all invertebrates when

compared to the other survey areas. Beetle diversity and number was highest on the sandy

area ISA3. The differentiation between areas and species groups highlighted the importance

of the habitat heterogeneity throughout the office landscape design.

Figure 5.2.28. Number of Coleoptera and Araneae individuals recorded in each pitfall

trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August2010. A single large pitfall trap was

placed in each of the brownfield landscaping pockets.

168

Figure 5.2.29. Number of Coleoptera and Araneae species recorded in each pitfall trap,

Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010.

2011


A complete list of records from the 2011 pitfall traps is displayed in Table A2.2 (Appendix 2).

Unfortunately three of the traps were lost due to repeated disturbance [ISA2 – herbaceous

scrub, ISA5 – herbaceous and scrub and ISA7 - brownfield habitat]. It was unclear as to why

these were disturbed, but it was likely that it was due to landscape management. No data was

therefore available for these areas.

From the traps that were not disturbed, a series of key species of conservation concern were

identified from within the target groups identified to species level. The limited scope of this

monitoring programme meant that it was not possible to identify all invertebrates within the

traps to species level. In order to get a more comprehensive overview of the species present

at the site, Hymenoptera individuals were identified to add to the Coleoptera and Araneae

identifications in 2010. Of the 7 Hymenoptera species identified, none were identified as being

of conservation importance. However, a single species captured in a pit fall trap on an

169

additional area (ISAX - see Figure 5.2.25) of the brownfield landscaping was Nb/RDB

Listed/Essex threatened (Priocnemis gracilis).


In additional to the species level identification, counts of all invertebrates and invertebrate

groups within each ISA pitfall were carried out. Figure 5.2.30 shows the total number of

individuals recorded in each survey area.

The woodland area ISA4 recorded the highest number of individuals of all of the survey areas

for which pitfall traps were collected. substantially so when compared to the other woodland

area ISA1. As in the 2010 survey, numbers on the sand bank ISA3 were also high. A similar

pattern was observed when analysing the invertebrate diversity data (Figure 5.2.31). ISAs3, 4

and 6 recorded the highest diversity of invertebrate groups, substantially higher diversity than

ISA1. This included ten invertebrate groups (Collembola, Hemiptera, Diptera, Araneae,

Opiliones, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Isopoda and Gastropoda). Similarly to 2010, of the

pitfall traps collected in 2011, the woodland area (ISA1) recorded the lowest diversity of

invertebrate groups.

Figure 5.2.30. Total number of invertebrates caught in pitfall traps, Barking Rive rside

office landscaping, August 2011. Pitfall traps were positioned within each survey area for

the same duration to standardise sampling effort.

170

Figure 5.2.31. Total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each pitfall trap,

Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011. Number of orders/groups recorded in

each trap was used as an indicator of invertebrate diversity within each habitat unit. Pitfall

traps were positioned within each survey area for the same duration to standardise sampling

effort.


In addition to overall invertebrate biodiversity, comparison was made of target groups

considered to be good indicators of habitat quality and key representatives of ground dwelling

invertebrate biodiversity. For this, the groups Coleoptera and Araneae were selected. Total

number of individuals in each trap was calculated (Figure 5.2.32).

In contrast to the overall invertebrate totals, the woodland area (ISA1) recorded relative high

numbers of Araneae and Coleoptera in relation to the other ISAs. As in the previous year,

Coleoptera numbers were significantly higher in the sandy area (ISA3) than other ISAs but,

perhaps surprisingly, no Araneae were caught in this area making it the worst for spiders. It

appeared therefore that, even after a second year of vegetation development on the Barking

Riverside landscaping and thus a more comprehensive ground cover across all ISAs, habitat

heterogeneity in terms of brownfield landscape design was still supporting differentiation in

terms of species groups.

171

Figure 5.2.32. Number of Coleoptera and Araneae species recorded in each pitfall trap,

Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011. Pitfall traps were positioned within

each survey area for the same duration to standardise sampling effort.

2012


A complete list of records from the 2012 pitfall traps is displayed in section A2.3 (Appendix 2).

Unfortunately, one pit fall trap was lost from ISA5 and ten were lost from the soft landscaping

areas ISAs 8, 9 and 10. It was unclear as to why the pitfall trap from ISA5 was lost, but the

pitfall traps from the soft landscaping ISAs were either removed by foxes or during landscape

management. Due to the large proportion of lost pitfall traps from these areas, it was

necessary to combine the data for all of the recovered soft landscaping pit fall traps to create

one general soft landscaping ISA with five replicate pitfall traps as representative of soft

landscaping at the Barking Riverside site.

In terms of conservation priority species, on the brownfield landscaping one RDB1 (+ Extinct)

species was recorded (Scybalicus oblonguisculus - considered by coleopterists to be extinct

in the UK until a single specimen was found by P.R. Harvey at West Canvey in 2002 and

172

West Thurrock PFA Lagoons in 2005), one RDB2 species (Philanthus triangulum - this

species is becoming increasingly widespread and its status may need re -assessing), one

RDB3 species (Lasioglossum pauperatum ), one Notable/Na species (Sphecodes longulus),

nine Notable Nb species (all of which were also Essex Red Data Book species), and 30

species of local nature conservation concern. On average there were 11.5 species of

conservation importance in each brownfield landscaping ISA. On the brownfield habitat ISA,

11 species of conservation concern were recorded. This included the RDB1 and RDB3

species recorded on the brownfield landscaping, a Notable/Na species ( Lasioglossum

pauxillum ) not recorded on the landscaping, four Notable/Nb spcecies (of which one was not

recorded on the landscaping - Trachyzelotes pedestris), and four local species (of which three

were not recorded on the landscaping - Platydracus stercorarius, Formica cunicularia and

Hoplitis spinulosa).

In comparison, on the soft landscaping ISA (8 to 10), only 4 species of conservation concern

were recorded. This comprised one Notable/Nb species that was also recorded on the

brownfield landscaping and three local species (of which two were only recorded on the soft

landscaping - Oedothorax apicatus and Pelecopsis parallela).


In additional to the species level identification, counts of invertebrate groups within each ISA

pitfall were carried out. Figure 5.2.33 shows the average number of invertebrate groups

recorded in each survey area.

Invertebrate groups recorded in pit fall traps comprised Acari, Araneae, Chilopoda,

Coleoptera, Collembola, Dermaptera, Diplopoda, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera,

Hymenoptera, Isopoda, Lepidoptera, Oligochaeta, Orthoptera, Symphyla, Thysanaura.

Highest average invertebrate group diversity was recorded on the sand bank brownfield

landscaping area (ISA3). Lowest average diversity was recorded on the combined soft

landscaping area (ISAs 8 to 10). Overall brownfield landscaping invertebrate group diversity

was approximately equal to or greater than the diversity recorded on the brownfield habitat

area and was consistently greater than that recorded on the soft landscaping area.


difference between the invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping and the

brownfield habitat and the soft landscaping areas. Results are presented in Table 5.2.10.

173

Figure 5.2.33. Average invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside pitfall

samples, 2012. Graph represents the average number of invertebrate groups collected in

each of five pit fall traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exception to this

was ISA 5 where one pit fall trap was lost. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to collection.

ISAs 1 to 6 represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield

habitat and ISA 8-10 represent a combined 5 pitfall traps from the soft landscaping areas ISA

8, 9 and 10. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Results of the Mann-Whitney U Exact tests indicated that there was no significant difference

between the brownfield landscaping and brownfield habitat ISAs in terms of invertebrate

group diversity (at the p ≤ 0.05 confidence level). There was, however, a significant difference

between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and soft landscaping ISAs for all but ISAs 1 and 6.

For the ISAs for which a significant difference was recorded, there was significantly greater

invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs.

174

Table 5.2.10. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the pitfall

trap invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with brownfield

habitat and the soft landscaping ISAs at Barking Riverside, August 2012. Pitfall trap

counts, representing the total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each of five pitfall

traps in each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA), were compared with an

equivalent number for the brownfield habitat ISA and the combined soft landscaping ISAs (8,

9 and 10) to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping habitat type. For ISA 5,

one pit fall trap was lost. p values in red represent those that were significantly different at a p

≤ 0.05 significance level.

ISA 7 (brownfield habitat) ISA8-10 (soft landscaping)


Bro

wn

fiel

d la

nd

scap

ing ISA 1 p = 0.881 N/S p = 0.056 N/S

ISA 2 p = 0.540 N/S p = 0.016 ISA 2

ISA 3 p = 0.079 N/S p = 0.008 ISA 3

ISA 4 p = 0.270 N/S p = 0.008 ISA 4

ISA 5 p = 0.214 N/S p = 0.016 ISA 5

ISA 6 p = 0.794 N/S p = 0.056 N/S


In addition to overall invertebrate group biodiversity, comparison was made of specific groups


invertebrate diversity.

For this analysis, the groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera were selected.

Individuals from these groups were, where possible, identified to species level. Figure 5.2.34

represents the total number of species of each of these three groups recorded within the

pitfall traps of each of the brownfield landscaping areas (ISAs 1 to 6) the brownfield habitat

area (ISA7) and the five combined traps from the soft landscaping areas (ISA 8 -10).

The highest total numbers of species were recorded in ISAs 2 and 3, with the lowest being

recorded in ISAs 1, 6, and ISA8-10. These were the only areas with no wildflower meadow

habitat included within the ISA pockets. The majority of species from the three target

invertebrate groups recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs were Araneae species. This was

not typical for any of the other ISAs with Araneae comprising less than 50% of the species

recorded for all of the other ISAs and typically closer to 30%. Proportions of the three target

invertebrate groups differed substantially between ISAs.

175


identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2012. Graph represents the

total number of species from within each target group and a cumulative total for the five pi tfall

traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exception to this was ISA 5 where

one pit fall trap was lost. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to collection. ISAs 1 to 6

represent the brownfield landscaping areas, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat, and ISA

8-10 represents a combined 5 pit fall traps from the soft landscaping areas ISA 8, 9 and 10.

In addition to number of species, rarity scores were calculated for the pit fall trap species from

the three target groups. Rarity scores were based on values used in Natural England's

Invertebrate Species - Habitat Information System (see 2012 sweep net results for further

details). Scores for each conservation priority species comprise: RDB1+ Extinct = 16pts;

RDB2 = 16pts; RDB3 = 8pts; Notable/Na = 4pts; Notable/Nb = 4pts; Nr = 2pts; and Local =

2pts. Figure 5.2.35 represents the rarity score totals for each ISA.

Again the sand bank brownfield landscaping area ISA3 was the highest performing ISA with

a substantially higher rarity score than any other ISA. Second highest rarity scores were

recorded for ISA 2 (the herbaceous and shrub planting pocket) and the brownfield habitat

area (ISA7). Lowest scoring were the most ornamental of the brownfield habitat pockets (ISA

6 - rubble and feature planting) and the soft landscaping area (ISA 8-10).

176

Figure 5.2.35. Species rarity scores for Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species


total species rarity scores for all conservation priority species within each Invertebrate Survey

Area (ISA) using Natural England's ISIS invertebrate assemblage assessment programme.

Scores are a cumulative total for species recorded in the five pitfall traps within each

Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exception to this was ISA 5 where one pitfall trap

was lost. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to collection. ISAs 1 to 6 represent the

brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISA 8-10 represents

a combined 5 pit fall traps from the soft landscaping areas ISA 8, 9 and 10.

2013


A complete list of records from the 2013 pitfall traps is displayed in section A2.4 (Appendix 2).

Unfortunately, one pit fall trap was lost from ISA3 and one was lost from the soft landscaping

area 10. It was unclear as to why these pit fall traps were lost but they were most likely lost to

foxes or during landscape management.

In terms of conservation priority species, on the brownfield landscaping the RDB1 (+ Extinct)

species recorded in the previous year (Scybalicus oblonguisculus) was again recorded. In

addition, one RDB2 species (Polistichus connexus), one RDB3 species (Lasioglossum

pauperatum ), one Notable/Na species (Lasioglossum pauxillum ), seven Notable Nb species

(all of which were also Essex Red Data Book species), one Nr species (Brachymeria minuta)

177

and 20 species of local nature conservation concern were recorded. This represented a

reduction in the number of Nb and local species compared to the previous year's pitfall

survey. On average there were 10.8 species of conservation importance in each brownfield

landscaping ISA. This also represented a slight decrease compared to the previous year

(down from 11.5).

On the brownfield habitat ISA, 13 species of conservation concern were recorded, this was

more than were recorded in 2012. This included the RDB3 species and Notable/Na species

recorded on the brownfield landscaping (Lasioglossum pauperatum and Lasioglossum

pauxillum ), three Notable/Nb spcecies (of which one was not recorded on the landscaping -

Lasioglossum malachurus), and eight local species, all of which were also recorded on the

brownfield landscaping.

In comparison, on the soft landscaping ISAs 8a, 9a and 10, 7 species of conservation

concern were recorded. These comprised three Notable/Nb species, one of which was only

recorded on the soft landscaping (Andrena pilipes sens. Str.), and four local species (of which

three were only recorded on the soft landscaping - Oedothorax apicatus Calathus cinctus

Myrmecina graminicola). Of particular interest was that all of these species were recorded

from ISA9, an area with greating habitat variability than the other soft landscaping ISA with

amenity grass, fruit trees and a rain garden all within the single ISA. Overall the average for

the soft landscaping ISAs was 3.3 species of conservation importance.


In additional to the species level identification, counts of all invertebrates and invertebrate

groups within each ISA pitfall were carried out. Figure 5.2.36 shows the average number of

invertebrate groups recorded in each survey area.

Invertebrate groups recorded in pit fall traps comprised Acari, Araneae, Chilopoda,

Coleoptera, Collembola, Dermaptera, Diplopoda, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera,

Hymenoptera, Isopoda, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Oligochaeta, Orthoptera,

Pseudoscorpionida, Psocoptera, Thysanoptera Highest average invertebrate group diversities

were recorded on the brownfield landscaping ISAs 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the brownfield habitat

ISA 7. Lowest average diversities were recorded on the most ornamental brownfield

landscaping ISA 6 and the soft landscaping ISAs 8 to 10. Overall, with the exception of ISA 6,

brownfield landscaping invertebrate group diversity was approximately equal to or greater

than diversity recorded on the brownfield habitat area and was greater than that recorded on

the soft landscaping areas. Values were typically higher than those recorded in 2012.

178

Figure 5.2.36. Average invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside pitfall

samples, 2013. Graph represents the average number of invertebrate groups collected in

each of five pit fall traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exceptions to

this were ISAs 3 and 10 where one pitfall trap was lost in each ISA. Traps were in place for 2

weeks prior to collection. ISAs 1 to 6 represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7

represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs 8 to10 represent the soft landscaping areas. Error

bars represent standard error of the mean.


difference between the invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping and the

diversity on the brownfield habitat and the soft landscaping areas. Results are presented in

Table 5.2.11.

Results of Mann-Whitney U Exact tests indicated that there was no significant difference in

terms of invertebrate group diversity between the brownfield landscaping habitat and all of

brownfield landscaping ISAs with the exception of ISA 6 (at the p ≤ 0.05 confidence level).

ISA6 was the rubble and ornamental planting brownfield landscaping area and was the most

ornamental of the brownfield landscaping areas. Similarly to the 2012 results, t here was a

significant difference between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and soft landscaping ISAs for

all but ISAs 1 and 6. For the ISAs for which a significant difference was recorded, there was

significantly greater invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs.

179

Table 5.2.11. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the pitfall

trap invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with brownfield

habitat and the soft landscaping ISAs at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Pitfall trap

counts, representing the total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each of five pitfall

traps in each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA), were compared with an

equivalent number for the brownfield habitat ISA and the combined soft landscaping ISAs (8,

9 and 10) to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping habitat type. For ISAs 3

and 10, one pitfall trap was lost in each ISA. p values in red represent those that were

significantly different at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.

ISA 7 (brownfield habitat) ISA8-10 (soft landscaping)


Bro

wn

fiel

d

lan

dsc

apin

g

ISA 1 p = 0.341 N/S p = 0.134 N/S

ISA 2 p = 0.119 N/S p = 0.001 ISA2

ISA 3 p = 0.667 N/S p = 0.007 ISA3

ISA 4 p = 0.278 N/S p = 0.001 ISA4

ISA 5 p = 0.762 N/S p = 0.003 ISA5

ISA 6 p = 0.024 ISA7 p = 0.496 N/S


In addition to overall invertebrate group biodiversity, comparison was made of specific groups


invertebrate diversity. Similarly to 2012, the groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera

were selected.

Individuals from these groups were, where possible identified to species level. Figure 5.2.37

represents the total number of species of these three groups recorded within the pit fall traps

of each of the brownfield landscaping areas (ISAs 1 to 6) the brownfield landscaping area

(ISA7) and the soft landscaping areas (ISA 8a, 9a and10).

180



total number of species from within each target group and a cumulative total for the five pi tfall

traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exceptions to this were ISAs 3 and

10 where one pitfall trap was lost from each. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to

collection. ISAs 1 to 6 represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the

brownfield habitat and ISAs 8a, 9a and10 represent the soft landscaping areas.

Despite a pit fall trap being lost, ISA 3 recorded the highest combined Araneae, Coleoptera

and Hymenoptera species diversity equal to the diversity recorded on the brownfield habitat

area ISA7. This high score for ISA 3 replicated that recorded in 2012. ISAs 1, 2 and 5 also

recorded high diversities for these groups. Diversity on the soft landscaping was low in

comparison to the majority of brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield habitat ISA.

This was particularly the case for Hymenoptera, with few recorded in any of the traps within

the soft landscaping. This contrasted sharply with ISA 7 which recorded by far the greatest

Hymenoptera species diversity. The most ornamental brownfield landscaping ISA (ISA 6)

recorded similar levels of species diversity of the target groups to the soft landscaping ISAs.

Rarity scores were also calculated for the pitfall trap species from the three target groups.

Rarity scores were based on values used in Natural England's Invertebrate Species-Habitat

Information System (see sweep net results for further details). Scores for each species

comprise: RDB1+ Extinct = 16pts; RDB2 = 16pts; RDB3 = 8pts; Notable/Na = 4pts;

Notable/Nb = 4pts; Nr = 2pts; and Local = 2pts. Figure 5.2.38 represents the rarity score

totals for each ISA.

181

Figure 5.2.38. Total species rarity scores for Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera

species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Graph

represents the total species rarity scores for all conservation priority species within each

Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) using Natural England's ISIS invertebrate assemblage

assessment programme. Scores are a cumulative total for species recorded in the five pitfall

traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exceptions to this were ISAs 3 and

10 where one pitfall trap was lost from each ISA. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to

collection. ISAs 1 to 6 represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the

brownfield habitat and ISAs 8a, 9a and 10 represent the soft landscaping.

Similarly to 2012, the sand bank brownfield landscaping area (ISA3) was a very high scoring

ISA for invertebrate rarity. This was particularly interesting as one of the pitfalls was lost in

this area and so rarity totals were based on only four pitfall traps. Highest score was recorded

on ISA 5. All but ISA6 of the brownfield landscaping ISAs had rarity scores similar to or

greater than the brownfield habitat ISA (ISA7). ISA 6 and the soft landscaping ISA rarity

scores were the lowest recorded. ISA9a was the only soft landscaping ISA to score greater

than 10. As mentioned previously, this area of the soft landscaping was more diverse in terms

of habitat features than the other two soft landscaping ISAs.

182

5.3. Brownfield habitat monitoring

In addition to the targeted vegetation and invertebrate surveys, brownfield habitat quality

assessment surveys were carried out based on a methodology developed by Buglife - the

Invertebrate Conservation Trust (Roberts et al. 2006).

Complete results from the 2010 brownfield habitat assessment baseline survey can be found

in Appendix 3. The survey identified that, even in the first year of development, the landscape

management at Barking Riverside offices created many habitat characteristics considered to

be of specific value on East Thames Corridor brownfield sites of national conservation

importance. The survey also revealed that the landscaping contained several negative

features associated with poorer quality brownfield sites, such as an abundance of buddleia.

The brownfield assessment surveys were repeated in subsequent years to assess how the

balance between good and poor quality brownfield habitat features developed on site. This is

particularly important in relation to designing management plans for the site as this was, to

the best of the authors' knowledge, the first time brownfield landscaping had been trialled.

Thus, no experience of management existed. Moreover, habitat management is a process

‘alien’ to the majority of brownfield sites in the region upon which natural disturbance, drought

and stress are the main driving forces impacting habitat development.

The following is a summary of changes recorded in the brownfield assessment surveys

between years:

2011

The survey identified that in the second year of development, the landscape management at

Barking Riverside offices continued to include habitat characteristics considered to be of

specific value on East Thames Corridor brownfield sites of national conservation importance.

As in the previous year, however, the survey also revealed that the landscaping contained

several negative features associated with poorer quality brownfield sites, such as an

abundance of buddleia.

Overall, the assessment demonstrated that the balance between good and poor quality

brownfield habitat features had improved between the first and second year surveys. This

was particularly due to vegetation changes on the landscaping. This included:

an increase in tall herbs;

an increase in flower diversity and abundance;

the presence of new key indicator species (crane-bills, fleabanes, sorrels, thistles,

toadflax, weld or mignonette, wormwood);

183

an increase in legumes (from ‘present’ to ‘abundant’).

The only habitat features to record poorer performance in 2011 when compared to the 2010

baseline were a decrease in the presence of bare ground and in the presence of sparse

vegetation. Both of these key habitat features were still recorded on site however despite their

reduction.

2012

Target brownfield habitat characteristics were again present on the landscaping in addition to

some negative features associated with poor brownfield sites.

Overall, the assessment demonstrated that the balance between good and poor quality

brownfield habitat features had continued to improve between the second and third year

surveys. This was particularly due to vegetation changes on the landscaping due to the lack

of management on the amenity grass areas and ornamental beds. This included:

an increase in tall herbs;

an increase in flower abundance on unmanaged amenity grass areas and

colonisation of ornamental beds;

an increase in overall floral diversity;

persistence of new key indicator species (crane-bills, fleabanes, sorrels, thistles,

toadflax, weld or mignonette, wormwood);

continued abundance of legumes.

As in the previous year, there were decreases in the presence of bare ground and the

presence of sparse vegetation. Both of which are key habitat features for the thermophilic

invertebrates typical of the region's brownfield sites.

2013

Whilst some target brownfield habitat characteristics were present on the landscaping, overall

it appeared that lack of management had accelerated development of some negative features

at the expense of target open mosaic features. As such the balance between good and poor

quality brownfield habitat features had not continued to improve between the third and fourth

year surveys. This was particularly due to the development of thick grass -dominated swards

and lack of bare ground. This led to:

an increase in tall grass but loss of tall herbs;

a decrease in floral abundance and diversity;

184

loss or reduction in key species such as legumes, toadflax, weld or mignonette, and

wormwood;

loss of bare exposed sandy areas for thermophilic insects.

6. Summary

Since its establishment in 2010, the monitoring programme on the Barking Riverside office

landscaping trial has provided a wealth of data on the range of biodiversity supported and

habitat niches created. Comparison of the brownfield landscaping areas with the soft

landscaping areas and neighbouring brownfield habitat has provided contextualisation of the

value of such habitat in relation to the soft landscaping areas of the development which are

typical of those found in modern urban commercial and residential developments in the UK.

Moreover, the repeated methodology has enabled annual comparison of performance in

terms of both biodiversity supported and aesthetics of the trial habitat. Such a case study is

an invaluable first step in terms of encouraging the use of biomimicry to incorporate regional

habitat of local and national conservation importance into the design of urban greenspace.

Key findings from the monitoring to inform this process included:

Fixed-point photography

For the baseline survey, nineteen fixed points were established within the Barking Riverside

office landscaping. This was increased to 22 when 3 soft landscaping fixed -points were

introduced in 2012. The fixed-point photography proved to be an effective tool for

documenting the colonisation of the landscaping. This included demonstrating how different

substrates and habitat types colonised at different rates and how the open flower -rich areas

(which are a target habitat feature typical of high quality brownfield sites) gradually colonised

leading to reduction in floral abundance and increase in tall grasses. For the majority of

habitat pockets, 2011 appeared to be optimal in terms of aesthetics of the landscaping and

2012 appeared to be optimal in terms of floral diversity and abundance. The gradual

colonisation and reduction in flowers by the time of the 2013 photos indicated that

management intervention was too infrequent to maintain the open sward habitat target for

some of the landscaping pockets. Discussions have been held with the landscape managers

to increase management intervention on some areas of the site. Monitoring will be continued

to assess the effect of this.

185

Vegetation surveys

Observations made from the fixed-point photos were supported by the vegetation surveys.

Inventories of all floral species on the landscaping within the field of view of each fixed -point

photo demonstrated an overall increase in floral diversity between 2010 and 2011 and then

generally another increase between 2011 and 2012. Between 2012 and 2013, however, the

majority of areas demonstrated declines in floral abundance.

In terms of total number of species recorded across the whole landscaping area, the most

diverse year was 2012 with 148 floral species recorded. This demonstrated the diversity

inherent in such a landscaping technique particularly when taking into account that the area in

question covered only 0.5 ha of urban landscaping and only a single floral survey was carried

out. Indeed, the total diversity could have been much higher than this were repeat surveys

carried out throughout the growing season.

Many of the floral species recorded on the brownfield landscaping pockets we re those

considered to be representative of the high quality brownfield habitats within the region that

the landscaping was designed to emulate (Appendix 3). As such it appears that the

landscaping achieved at least some of its key objectives. When comparisons were made with

the floral diversity of soft landscaping control areas of the Barking Riverside development, it

became apparent that many of these key brownfield floral species were absent. In fact soft

landscaping pockets of approximately equivalent size were found to have significantly lower

floral diversity than the brownfield landscaping pockets.

The combination of the fixed-point photography and floral surveys were also used to identify

the occurrence of synusia (niches) within the landscaping. Five different synusia were

identified (ground layer; herb layer; shrub layer, tree layer, non-ground level layer) providing a

range of niches for the associated biodiversity to exploit. This structure within the brownfield

landscaping was critical for supporting a broad range of diversity. This was demonstrated by

the invertebrate survey results which recorded very different assemblages dependent upon

the different habitat characteristics within each brownfield and soft landscaping pocket.

Invertebrate survey - Timed counts

Highest bumblebee timed counts appeared to be correlated with habitat type, floral type and

floral abundance. Wildflower meadow areas and areas of ornamental planting with floral

species which appeared to be preferred by foraging bumblebees consistently recorded the

highest bumblebee numbers and diversity. Bumblebee species recorded during the timed

counts comprised six species considered to be nationally ubiquitous, but also recorded two

UK Biodiversity Action Plan species, Bombus humilis and Bombus sylvarum. Timed counts

186

revealed patterns of decline in bumblebee abundance and species diversity by the time of the

2013 surveys. This pattern mirrored that recorded for floral diversity and provided further

evidence to support a need for slightly more intensive management intervention to maintain

habitat quality.

In contrast to the bumblebee diversity recorded on the brownfield landscaping areas, only a

single nationally ubiquitous species of bumblebee was recorded on the soft landscaping

control areas. Bumblebee number and species diversity was found to be significantly greater

on the brownfield landscaping than the soft landscaping for all brownfield ISAs in 2013 and all

but one brownfield landscaping ISA in 2012. When compared to an area of typical brownfield

habitat on the undeveloped area of the site, during the baseline survey, timed counts on the

landscaping were significantly lower than on the brownfield habitat both in terms of

bumblebee number and species diversity. By the time of the 2011 and 2012 su rveys this was

no longer the case and performance on the brownfield habitat pockets was similar to that on

the brownfield area. By the time of the 2013 survey this dynamic had changed again with the

brownfield habitat having significantly greater numbers o f bumblebees. This provided more

evidence for the need for management intervention on the landscaping to maintain the

wildflower abundance and diversity.

Timed counts of butterflies demonstrated a similar pattern of year-on-year increases but, in

contrast to the bumblebees, numbers did not decline by 2013. Butterfly species diversity

followed a similar trend. This indicated that butterflies may have been associated with more

grass-dominated tall swards and highlighted a need for longer rotation cutting of some areas

to maintain this habitat and create a mosaic including bare areas, open flower-rich areas and

more grass-dominated areas. In total, 11 species of butterfly were recorded on the brownfield

landscaping habitat pockets. In contrast, only three species were recorded on the soft

landscaping areas. Statistical analysis revealed that significantly greater numbers and

diversity of butterfly species were recorded on the brownfield landscaping than the soft

landscaping in all brownfield ISAs in 2013 and all but one (ISA6) in 2012. In relation to the

brownfield landscaping, generally significantly greater numbers of butterflies were recorded

on the brownfield habitat in 2010 and 2011, on the brownfield landscaping in 2012 and then

little significant difference in 2013. For butterfly diversity, little statistical significance was

recorded between the brownfield habitat and brownfield landscaping but, when it was, the

brownfield habitat was more diverse.

In terms of vegetation use by bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping, colonised floral and

sown wildflowers generally comprised the vast majority of visits. The exception to this was in

2010 when little flora other than planted ornamentals was available. For butterflies, non -

foraging observations were most frequent (e.g. in flight or resting on grass). Of the visits that

were recorded to flowering plants proportionately very few were recorded on planted

187

ornamentals. The exception to this being buddleia in 2010. These records highlight the

importance of including wildflower areas in urban landscape design in order to maximise

biodiversity. This is particularly the case for target conservation priority species such as the

UK BAP bumblebee, Bombus humilis.

Bombus humilis numbers demonstrated a general pattern of increase from 2010 to 2011 and

2011 to 2012 with the majority of observations being associated with flora in the wildflower

meadow areas. As reported in previous studies (Connop et al. 2013) the majority of visits by

this species were made to flora within the plant family Fabaceae (e.g. Lotus corniculatus and

Trifolium pratense).However in 2010 and 2013, when the wildflower meadows were

suboptimal for forage, a greater proportion of visits were to planted ornamentals.

Numbers of B. humilis on the landscaping were generally similar to or significantly greater

than those on the brownfield landscaping indicating that the meadow areas created within the

brownfield landscaping pockets were suitable and beneficial for this species. In stark contrast

to this, no B. humilis individuals were recorded on the soft landscaping control areas.

Invertebrate survey - Sweep net surveys

Sweep net surveys recorded a suite of conservation priority species utilizing the brownfield

landscaping. Of most interest was only the third modern record of Andrena nigriceps in Essex

and the RDB3 species Lassioglossum pauperatum. In contrast to this, only a single species of

local conservation importance was recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs in 2012 and again

in 2013. This highlighted the potential importance that brownfield landscaping could play in

biodiversity conservation in urban areas.

More evidence for the added biodiversity value of brownfield landscaping was provided by the

functional groupings diversity assessment of the sweep net data. Invertebrate samples were

sorted into invertebrate group diversity (at the taxanomic Order level or similar). At this broad

grouping level more diverse invertebrate assemblages were recorded on the brownfield

landscaping than on the neighbouring brownfield habitat area. The only exception to this was

the most ornamental brownfield landscaping area (ISA6). Diversity on the brownfield

landscaping was also consistently similar to or greater than the soft landscaping ISAs, again

with the exception of the most ornamental brownfield landscaping area (ISA6). Whilst no

significant difference was recorded between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the soft

landscaping in 2012, when replicate sampling was introduced in each ISA in 2013 the

brownfield landscaping ISAs were significantly more diverse than the soft landscaping ISAs.

Similar results were also revealed when the target groups - Araneae, Coleoptera and

Hymenoptera were analysed to species level. Greatest numbers of species for each of these

188

groups were recorded on the brownfield ISAs and lowest numbers were recorded on the soft

landscaping ISAs. Number on the soft landscaping ISAs were so low that no Coleoptera or

Hymenoptera were caught during sweep netting on the amenity grass and tree pock et area of

the soft landscaping (ISA10) and the number of Hymenoptera caught was significantly greater

on the brownfield landscaping than the soft landscaping ISAs.

In addition to overall diversity of invertebrates, an assessment was carried out of the

conservation value of the sweep net samples from each ISA. Invertebrate rarity scores

assigned in Natural England's Invertebrate Species -Habitat Information System (ISIS) were

used to calculate a relative conservation value for the combined sweep net totals for each ISA

sampled during the 2013 surveys. Rarity scores, and thus indicative conservation value, was

higher on all of the brownfield habitat pockets than the soft landscaping ISAs. The highest

rarity values recorded were on three of the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield

habitat ISA.

Invertebrate survey - Pitfall traps

Further evidence for the value of the brownfield landscaping in terms of invertebrate diversity

and conservation value came from the pit fall trap surveys. For the 2010 and 2011 surveys a

single large trap was placed within each ISA. Losses of some of these traps meant that

comprehensive data was not available. Nevertheless, in the traps that remained intact,

several conservation priority species were recorded including the RDB2 beetle Polistichus

connexus and an undescribed spider Megalepthyphantes sp. nova.

Assessment of the surviving 2010 and 2011 traps in terms of invertebrate gro ups

demonstrated substantial differences between brownfield landscaping ISAs. Of particular

interest was the sand bank area (ISA3). This ISA recorded the highest number of individuals

of any ISA, one of the highest overall group diversities, and highest number and species

diversity of Coleoptera. It also recorded one the of the lowest number of Araneae individuals

and Araneae species diversity of all of the ISAs. The woodland pocket (ISA1) recorded an

almost opposite pattern to this recording the highest number and species diversity of Araneae

and one of the lowest number and species diversity of Coleoptera. This pattern occurred for

both the 2010 and 2011 surveys and similar, but not as pronounced, patterns were also

observed for other ISAs. These patterns indicated that there were substantial differences

between the invertebrate assemblages recorded between different habitat management

areas. This finding highlighted the importance of incorporating habitat heterogeneity of a

range of habitat types into design plans for enhancing the overall site biodiversity.

In 2012 and 2013 the pit fall trap methodology was changed to multiple trapping in each ISA to

avoid the impacts of trap losses. Survey area was also increased to include brownfield habitat

189

and soft landscaping areas. This provided additional detail on the brownfield landscaping

performance. The more comprehensive pitfall trapping methodology included the recording of

a key conservation priority species on the brownfield landscaping, the RDB1 (+ extinct)

Coleoptera Scybalicus oblonguisculus. This species was only recorded on the brownfield

landscaping ISAs 3, 4 and 5 plus a single specimen recorded on the brownfield habitat area

(ISA7). Scybalicus oblonguisculus individuals were collected in 2012 and 2013. A number of

additional national and local conservation priority species were also recorded. Whilst several

were recorded on the soft landscaping areas, the average number of conservation priority

species per ISA were substantially higher on the brownfield landscaping and brownfield

habitats than the soft landscaping ISAs.

This pattern was replicated within the 2012 and 2013 pit fall trap invertebrate group diversity

analyses. With the exception of ISA6 in 2013, no significant difference was recorded between

the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield ISA. In contrast, a significantly greater

invertebrate group diversity was recorded on 4 of the 6 brownfield ISAs than the soft

landscaping ISAs for both survey years. The other two ISAs (ISAs 1 and 6) r ecorded no

significant difference. Similar patterns of increased diversity on the brownfield landscaping

were also recorded for the target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera. Species

numbers were greatest on the brownfield landscaping ISAs 2 and 3 in 2012 and on ISAs 2, 3

& 5 and the brownfield habitat ISA in 2013. Across the two survey years, lowest diversities

were consistently recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs and the most ornamental of the

brownfield ISAs (ISA6). Of particular interest, however, was the relatively large proportion of

Araneae species in the soft landscaping ISAs and very few Coleoptera and Hymenoptera

species. This contrasted with the brownfield ISAs which recorded relatively similar proportions

of all three groups. Again this provided evidence for the importance of habitat heterogeneity in

supporting a diversity of invertebrate groups.

Rarity scores for the 2012 and 2013 surveys replicated patterns observed for the target

groups with ISAs 2 and 3 recording the highest conservation values in 2012 and ISAs 3 and 5

scoring the highest in 2013. ISA6 and the soft landscaping ISAs recorded the lowest

numbers. Of particular interest was the brownfield habitat ISA which also scored consistently

high rarity scores, despite recording relatively few species from the target groups in 2012.

Perhaps the key difference between the 2012 and 2013 surveys was that the average number

of conservation priority species per trap had decreased on the brownfield landscaping ISAs

by the time of the 2013 survey. No similar trend was recorded for the brownfield habitat ISA

providing some further evidence that the habitat quality of the landscaping had declined for

invertebrate conservation interests. Despite this decline, the brownfield landscaping ISA

averages were still substantially greater than those for the soft landscaping ISAs.

190

Invertebrate survey - general

Many of the species recorded during the invertebrate survey, and particularly the

conservation priority species, were thermophilic and/or saproxylic invertebrates with complex

life cycle requirements. Being heavily focused on visual aesthetics, traditional urban

landscape design provides some of the nectar and pollen-rich flora vital for many of these

invertebrates. It does not however, encapsulate the range of synusia (such as bare sand,

rubble and standing deadwood) and many of the native wildflowers necessary for these

invertebrates to persist. As such, these invertebrates are becoming increasingly rare as they

are marginalised on the only sites that retain these features in urban landscapes - brownfield

sites. With brownfield sites targeted for redeveloped through regeneration initiatives, the final

strangleholds of these species in the UK are being lost.

The difference in general diversity and diversity of target groups and conservation priority

species between the brownfield landscaping and soft landscaping indicated that the

brownfield landscaped areas had gone some way towards achieving the aim of encapsulating

the mosaic of habitats typical of brownfield sites. Indeed, this conclusion was supported by

the positive result of the brownfield assessment form (Appendix 3) which recorded many

habitat features within the landscaping that are considered to be typical of high quality

brownfield sites.

Brownfield habitat monitoring

Use of the Brownfield Habitat Assessment form (Roberts et al. 2006) proved to be an

effective broad-brush approach to assessing the quality of the brownfield landscaping in

relation to meeting the targets of incorporating brownfield habitat features into the urban

landscaping initiative. Baseline assessment in 2010 indicated that the landscaping created

had produced a good approximation of high quality brownfield sites containing several of the

key habitat features but also a some negative indicator features.

Annual assessment provided additional evidence to support the development of a

management plan for the conservation of brownfield habitat characteristics with particular

focus on retaining the open flower-rich areas. Surveys recorded an initial increase in key

habitat features such as tall herbs, flower abundance, and key species such as legumes. In

contrast, a decrease in bare ground and sparse vegetation was also identified. By 2013,

surveys recorded an overall decrease in habitat quality due to changes in several key habitat

features including an increase in tall grass, loss of tall herbs, decrease in floral abundance

and diversity, loss of bare sandy areas and loss of key species (particularly a reduction in

legumes). Whilst tall grass areas seemed to be the preferred habitat for butterflies on the site,

domination of this habitat type appeared to contribute to the reduction of overall brownfield

191

biodiversity. These results indicated a need for management intervention to mimic the

disturbance regime typical on many brownfield sites to maintain the open swards, floral

richness and abundance of flowers.

Differing rates of colonisation between the sand bank areas and the other landscaped areas

of the site also indicated that consideration should be given to the more comprehensive use

of alternative aggregates to topsoil for roll out of brownfield landscaping acr oss the

development. Recycled topsoil is often nutrient rich and is typically not a dominant substrate

on most high quality brownfield sites. By using topsoil for the majority of the base substrate

for the brownfield landscaping trial, rates of colonisation and succession were accelerated

and thus a need for greater management intervention at greater cost was required. Use of

alternative aggregates such as recycled sands, gravels and potentially green roof-type

aggregates, would slow down this successional process.

Such was the success of the brownfield habitat assessment survey methodology in relation to

capturing the patterns recorded during fixed-point photography, vegetation and invertebrate

surveys that the authors would recommend its use for informing the design of future

brownfield landscaping initiatives that it is hoped will be inspired by this endeavour.

Associated ecosystem services

Due to limitations of budget for the brownfield landscaping design and practicalities

associated with the location of the experiment in a public access area at the entrance to the

Barking Riverside offices and the construction site, it was not possible to assess associated

ecosystem service benefits of the landscape design such as water attenuation, air pollution

regulation, carbon storage and urban climate regulation (Pushpam 2010). Detailed analysis of

the ecosystem service performance in terms of these regulatory services was not however

deemed necessary in the present study as there was already a wealth of data available on

the numerous ecological and economic benefits of including greenspace in urban areas

including water management (Mann 2000; Mentens et al. 2006), mitigation of the urban heat

island effect (Ernst and Weigerding 1985; Von Stülpnagel et al. 1990; Bass et al. 2002) and

air pollution (Pugh et al 2012). In addition, a TURAS green roof study at Barking Riverside

has demonstrated that there was no associated ecosystem service cost in terms of water

attenuation and thermal performance of moving away from typical aesthetic urban green

infrastructure (green roof) designs to more biodiverse systems (Connop et al. 2013) indeed

many improvements in performance were recorded.

The aim of the present study was to investigate how biodiversity could be embedded within

urban greenspace design to enhance the multifunctionality of ecosystem service performance

of generic urban soft landscaping. It is important to recognise, however, that brownfield

192

landscaping designed using regional conservation priority habitat as inspiration would also

perform the target regulatory services of industry standard urban green infrastructure

components such as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDs) and green walls. Indeed,

there is no reason that brownfield habitat features could not be inco rporated into urban SuDs

design.

Certainly the brownfield landscaping would be performing key services for the Barking

Riverside development in terms of:

providing permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration;

storing stormwater in ephemeral wet areas (this was particularly apparent in ISA6

where common reed (Phargmites australis) had colonised the landscaping);

providing urban comfort zones through the conversion of hard standing areas with

different thermal bulk and surface radiative properties to vegetated areas with

increased evaporative cooling;

significant leaf area contributing to the removal of NOx and PM air pollution reduction

(Pugh et al. 2012);

carbon sequestration through the development of biomass within the vegetation and

organic matter build up in soils (it would be excepted that biomass build up would be

greater on brownfield landscaping than soft landscaping and amenity grass areas,

due to low maintenance intensity leading to increased standing biomass and

increased organic input into substrates).

Additional benefits of reduced management requirements of using regionally typical habitats

and plants in urban landscaping programmes includes reduced fossil fuel, irrigation and

fertiliser requirements and reduced costs.

Cost

Whilst no specific costs for landscape management were determined for the Barking

Riverside brownfield landscaping due to the varied frequencies of experimental management

undertaken to determine the most appropriate intervention level, it would be expected that

management costs would be lower than for intensively managed amenity greenspace. This

cost will be determined once the appropriate management intervention level has been

established at the conclusion of the experiment. In lieu of this, however, it can be predicted

that a reduction in cost would be associated with the reduced management intensity

compared to amenity and ornamental landscaping, and reduced requirements for irrigation,

fertiliser input and fossil fuel use. Indeed, calculations carried out by the landscape contractor

for a similar brownfield landscaping initiative on the University of East London Docklands

Campus (Connop 2012) found that it would be approximately £200 per annum cheaper to

manage the 0.3 ha area as brownfield habitat than regularly cutting it as amenity grass. This

represented a 25% reduction in cost.

193

Conclusion

Whilst by no means providing a panacea to the conflict between urban development and

environmental protection, the results of the first four years of this study have provided an

insight into the potential for innovation in urban green infrastructure design. Specifically the

potential for combining the aesthetics of landscape design with ecological understanding

inspired by habitat of regional conservation importance. Applying such principles to urban

green infrastructure design enables the creation and restoration of greenspace able to

support diverse biodiversity and thus support truly multifunctional associated ecosystem

services. As such this approach to urban green infrastructure design supports urban

sustainability and resilience beyond the traditionally targeted cultural services (aesthetics and

amenity use) and the more recently recognised regulatory services (e.g. stormwater

attenuation, water quality and air quality) to include additional regulatory services (e.g.

pollination) as well as provisioning and habitat services (Pushpam 2010) which are typically

not associated with urban landscaping environments.

Continued monitoring of the landscaping is vital to establish the a ppropriate levels of

management for a habitat type typically managed by disturbance and contamination in the

wider landscape. It is also important to monitor patterns of biodiversity value on the

landscaping as the Barking Riverside brownfield site as a whole continues to be developed.

Current understanding of habitat fragmentation and metapopulation dynamics (Gilpin, 1987;

Opdam, 1990; Hanski & Gilpin, 1991; Reed, 2004) dictates that there is a critical area of

habitat required to support populations of these rare invertebrates. Unfortunately however, it

is not fully understood what this critical area is and how it changes from species to species. In

essence, the landscaping monitoring could be used as a barometer to measure whether there

needs to be a critical area of source high quality brownfield habitat within the vicinity of the

brownfield landscaping for it to be effective, or whether small pockets of brownfield habitat

within a large landscape are sufficient to act as stepping stones to conserve overall

biodiversity, and particularly the conservation priority invertebrate interest, within the

landscape fabric.

Now that the brownfield landscaping trial has proved to be successful in its aims and

objectives, the next stage will be to roll out these design principles throughout the Barking

Riverside Development through ecological engineering and to monitor the results. If the

Barking Riverside Development is able to conserve these invertebrate populations throughout

the growth of the new community, it would serve as a blueprint for future urban planning on

how to incorporate habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity into sustainable development. It is,

however, important to recognise that this is a case study and further monitoring of biodiverse

landscaping inspired by regional habitat context should be carried out in order to provide a

194

more complete picture of the potential of these design principles and the range of biodiversity

that can be supported by urban landscape design.

7. Acknowledgements

The long-term monitoring of this innovative urban landscaping programme would not have

been possible without the support of the EU FP7 TURAS (Transitioning towards Urban

Resilience and Sustainability) project and Natural England research funding.

The authors wish to thank Natural England and Barking Riverside for promoting this

innovative and much-needed approach to marrying sustainable development and biodiversity

conservation in the national biodiversity hotspot of the East Thames Corridor. We would also

like to extend a particular debt of thanks to Samantha Davenport and Dominic Coath of

Natural England for identifying the funding to enable this experiment and monitoring

programme to be established and developed

Large thanks also to Peter Harvey and Richard Jones for thei r invaluable help with

invertebrate identification. A special mention must also be made to the landscape designers

at DF Clark Ltd for generating stylish and functioning state-of-the-art habitat features when

faced with the daunting task of fusing the wildness of brownfield habitats within the

orderliness of office landscaping.

195

8. References

Banaszak, J. (1980) Studies on methods of censusing the number of bees (Hymenoptera,

Apoidea). Polish Ecological Studies 6, 355-365.

Barking Riverside (2009) Development Vision. Online. Available from

http://www.barkingriverside.co.uk/vision.html [Accessed May 2014]

Bass, B., Stull, R., Krayenjoff, S. and Martilli, A. (2002) Modelling the impact of green roo f

infrastructure on the urban heat island in Toronto. Green Roofs Infrastructure Monitor

4(1), pp. 2-3.

Bodsworth, E., Shepherd, P. & Plant, C. (2005) Exotic plant species on brownfield land: their

value to invertebrates of nature conservation importance. English Nature Research

Report No. 650. Peterborough: English Nature.

Bourn, N.A.D and Thomas, J.A. (2002) The challenge of conserving grassland insects at the

margin of their range in Europe. Biological Conservation 104, pp. 285-292.

Buchholz (2010) Ground spider assemblages as indicators for habitat structure in inland

sand ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(9), 2565-2595.

Buglife (2009) Planning for brownfield biodiversity: a best practice guide. Peterborough:

Buglife.

Cadenasso, M.L., Pickett, S.T.A. and Schwarz, K. (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban

ecosystems: reconceptualising land cover and a framework for classification.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5, pp. 80-88.

Collier, M., Nedović-Budić, Z., Aerts, J., Connop, S., Foley, D., Foley, K., Newport, D.,

McQuaid, S., Slaev, A., Verburg, P. (2013) Transitioning to resilience and

sustainability in urban communities. Cities 32, S21-S28.

Connop, S. (2012) The Beetle Bump: innovative urban habitat creation for rare insects. Essex

Naturalist 29 (New Series), 89-94.

Connop, S., Hill, T., Steer, J. and Shaw, P. (2010) The role of dietary breadth in national

bumblebee (Bombus) declines: simple correlation? Biological Conservation 143 (11),

2739-2746.

Connop, S., Nash, C., Gedge, D. Kadas, G, Owczarek, K and Newport, D. (2013) TURAS

green roof design guidelines: Maximising ecosystem service provision through

regional design for biodiversity. Milestone Report for TURAS (FP7). London:

University of East London.

DEFRA (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildli fe and ecosystem services.

London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affai rs.

Drake, C.M., Lott, D.A., Alexander, K.N.A. & Webb, J. (2007) Surveying terrestrial and

freshwater invertebrates for conservation evaluation. Natural England Research

Report NERR005. Sheffield: Natural England.

Edwards, M. and Jenner, M. (2005) Field guide to the bumblebees of Great Britain & Ireland.

Ocelli, Eastbourne, UK.

http://www.barkingriverside.co.uk/vision.html

196

Eisenberg, E. (1998) The ecology of Eden. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, New York

City, USA.

Ellis, J. (2006) PhD Thesis. Submitted to University of Southampton.

English Nature (2003) Green roofs: their existing status and potential for conserving

biodiversity in urban areas. English Nature Research Reports, Report no. 498,

English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough, UK.

Environment Agency (2002) The Urban Environment in England and Wales: A Detailed

Assessment. Environment Agency Report, Bristol.

Ernst, W. and Weigerding, I. (1985) Oberflächenentwässerung, Gewässerentlastung durch

ökologische/ökonomische Planung. Bundesblatt 34(11), pp. 722 -732.

European Commission (2013) Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural

Capital. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the

Regions. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/1_EN

_ACT_part1_v5.pdf [Accessed May 2014]

Foster, S., Lawrence, A. and Morris, B. (1998) Groundwater in urban development. World

Bank Technical Paper no 390, Washington DC.

Francis, R. and Chadwick, M. (2012) What makes a species synurbic? Applied Geography

32(2), 514-521.

Gillet, F. and Gallandet, J-D. (1996) Integrated synusial phytosociology: some notes on a

new, multi-scalar approach to vegetation analysis. Journal of Vegetation Science, 7,

13-18.

Gilpin, M.E. (1987) Spatial structure and population vulnerability. In: Viable populations for

conservation (ed. Soule, M.E.), pp. 125-140, Cambridge University Press.

Goulson, D and Cory, J. (2008) Flower constancy and learning in foraging preferences of the

green-veined white butterfly Pleris napi. Ecological Entomology 18, Issue 4, 315–320.

Goulson, D. and Darvill, B. (2004) Niche overlap and diet breadth in bumblebees; are rare

species more specialized in their choice of flowers? Apidologie 35, 55-63.

Goulson, D., Lye, G.C. and Darvill, B. (2009) Diet breadth, coexistence and rarity in

bumblebees. Biodiversity and Conservation 17, 3269-3288.

Hanley, M.E., Franco, M., Pichon, S., Darvill, B. and Goulson, D. (2008) Breeding system,

pollinator choice and variation in pollen quality in British herbaceous plants.

Functional Ecology 22, 592-598.

Hanski, I. & Gilpin, M. (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain.

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 42, 3-16.

Harvey, P.R. (2000) The East Thames Corridor: a nationally important invertebrate fauna

under threat. British Wildlife 12, 91-98.

Harvey, P.R. (2007) All of a buzz project reports. Report for Buglife, Peterborough.

Hellawell, J.M.(1978) Biological surveillance of rivers. Medmenham: Water Resource Centre.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/1_EN_ACT_part1_v5.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/1_EN_ACT_part1_v5.pdf

197

HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. Available at:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.asp [Accessed:

May 2014].

Hunter, M.R. and Hunter, M.D. (2008) Designing for conservation of insects in the built

environment. Insect Conservation and Diversity 1, pp. 189-196.

Hurford, C. and Perry, K. (2000) Habitat Monitoring for Conservation Management and

Reporting. 1: Case Studies. Bangor, Countryside Council for Wales.

Hurford, C., Jones, M.R. & Brown, A. (2001) Habitat Monitoring for Conservation

Management and Reporting. 2: Field Methods. Bangor, Countryside Council for

Wales.

Jones, R.A. (2007) Caught in the greenwash: What future for invertebrate conservation on the

brownfield sites of the Thames Gateway?. Report for Buglife, Peterborough.

Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Elek, Z., Balázs, K., Centeri, C., Falusi, E., Jeanneret, P., Penksza,

K., Podmaniczky, L., Szalkovszki, O., Báldi, A. (2013) Earthworms, spiders and bees

as indicators of habitat quality and management in a low-input farming region—A

whole farm approach, Ecological Indicators 33,111-120.

Kremen, C., Colwell, R., Erwin, T., Murphy, D., Noss, R. and Sanjayan, M. (1993) Terrestrial

Arthropod Assemblages: Their Use in Conservation Planning. Conservation Biology

7, 796–808.

Kwak, M.M. (1987) Marking bees without anaesthesia. Bee World 68, 180 -181.

Lott, D. (2007) Synopsis of ISIS 2008 and its use in Common Standards Monitoring. Report

produced by for Natural England, Stenus Research, Leicestershire.

Mann, G. (2000) Retentionsverhalten begrünter Dächer in Abhängigkeit von

derNiederschlagsregion. Stadt und Grün 49(10), pp.681-686.

Marsalek, J., Jimenez-Cisneros, B., Malmquist, P., Karamouz, M., Goldenfum, J., Chocat, B.

(2006) Urban water cycle processes and interactions. Urban water series,

International Hydrological Programme UNESCO, Regional Bureau for Science in

Europe.

McKinney, M. (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52, pp. 883 –

890.

McKinney, M. (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological

Conservation 127 (3), pp. 247–260.

Mentens, J., Raes, D. and Hermy, M. (2006) Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater

runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape and Urban Planning 7 7, pp.

217-226.

Naumann, S., McKenna D., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M. and Raymont, M. (2011). Design,

implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final report.

Brussels: European Commission.

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.asp

198

Niachou, A., Papakonstantinou, K., Santamouris, M., Tsangrassoulis, A. and Mihalakakou, G.

(2001) Analysis of the greenroof thermal properties and investigation of its energy

performance. Energy and Buildings 33, pp. 719-729.

Opdam, P. (1990) Understanding the ecology of populations in fragmented l andscapes.

Transcript from the 19th IUGB Congress, Trondheim 1989, 373-380.

Pickett, S.T.A, Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Nilon, C.H., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer, W.C. and

Costanza, R. (2001) Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecology, physical,

and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecology

and Systematics 32, pp. 127-157.

Pugh, T., Mackenzie, R., Whyatt, D. & Hewitt, C. (2012) Effectiveness of green infrastructure

for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons. Environmental Science and

Technology 46( 14), pp. 7692–7699.

Pushpam, K. (Ed.) (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and

Economic Foundations. Report for the United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-

reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/#.Ujr1xH9mOG8 (Accessed May 2014).

Ranta, E. and Lundberg, H. (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: the significance of

differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35, 298-302.

Reed, D.H. (2004) Extinction risk in fragmented habitats, Animal Conservation, 7, 181–191.

Riding, A., Critchley, N., Wilson, L. & Parker, J. (2010) Definition and mapping of open mosaic

habitats on previously developed land: Phase 1. Available at:

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC0722_9022_FRP.pdf

[Accessed: August 2012].

Rivaz-Martinez, S., Sanchez-Mata, D. and Costa, M. (1999) North American boreal and

western temperate forest vegetation. Itinera Geobotanica, 12, 5-316.

Roberts, J, Jones, R. and Harvey, P. (2006) All of a Buzz in the Thames Gateway: Appendix

3 – Habitat Assessment Form. Available at:

http://www.buglife.org.uk/Resources/Buglife/Documents/AoaBPhase1Appendix4.pdf

[Accessed February 2011]

Saville, N.M., Dramstad, W.E., Fry, G.L.A. and Corbet, S.A. (1997) Bumblebee movement in

a fragmented landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 61, 145 -154.

Schochat, E., Warren, P.S. and Faeth, S.H. (2006) Future directions in urba n ecology. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution 21, pp. 661-662.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Cities and Biodiversity Outlook.

Montreal, 64 pages.

Stace, C. (2010) Field Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Takakura, T., Kitade, S. and Goto, E. (2000) Cooling effect of greenery cover over a building.

Landscape and Urban Planning 31, pp. 1-6.

Town and Country Planning Association and The Wildlife Trusts (2012) Planning for a healthy

environment - good practice guidance for green infrastructure and biodiversity.

http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/%23.Ujr1xH9mOG8

http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/%23.Ujr1xH9mOG8

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC0722_9022_FRP.pdf

http://www.buglife.org.uk/Resources/Buglife/Documents/AoaBPhase1Appendix4.pdf

199

Available at: http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_TWT_GI-Biodiversity-Guide.pdf

[Accessed: May 2014].

UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment:

Synthesis of the KeyFindings. Available at: http://uknea.unep-

wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [Accessed: July 2014].

UNFPA (2007) State of World Population: unleashing the potential for urban growth. Available

at: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html [Accessed February

2011].

Usher, M.B. (1997) Small populations: fragmentation, populations dynamics and population

genetics. In Tew, T.G. et al. (eds) The role of genetics in conserving small

populations, pp. 11-21, JNCC, Peterborough.

Villareal, E.L., Semadeni_Davies, A., Bengtsson, L. (2004) Inner city stormwater control using

a combination of best management practices. Ecological Engineering 22, pp.279 -298.

Von Stülpnagel, A., Horbert, M. and Sukopp, H. (1990) The importance of vegetation for the

urban climate. In: Sukopp, H. and Hejny, S. (Eds.) Urban Ecology. Plants and Plant

Communities in Urban Environments. SPB Academic Publication, The Hague, pp.

175-193.

White, R. (2002) Building the Ecological City. Woodland Publication, Cambridge.

Williams, P.H. (1989) Why are there so many species of bumblebees at Dungeness?

Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 101, 31-44.

Yurtsever, S, Okyar, Z and Guler, N. (2010) What colour of flowers do Lepidoptera prefer for

foraging? Biologia 65, 1049-1056.

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_TWT_GI-Biodiversity-Guide.pdf

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html

200

Appendix 1

A1.1 - 2010 sweep net results

Table A1.1.1. Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting

Species Order Number National Status Notes

Planthopper indet. Hemiptera 1 - -

Andrena nigriceps Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb

Essex Red Data Book species, only two records for the county (VC18/19) in

N.E. Essex

Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 2 - -

Episyrphus balteatus Syrphidae 1 - -

Eristalis tenax Syrphidae 1 - -

Table A1.1.2. Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting


Nothing - - - -

Table A1.1.3. Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank



Eupeodes luniger Syrphidae 1 - -

Scaeva pyrastri Syrphidae 1 - -

Table A1.1.4. Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting


Harmonia axyridis Coleoptera 1 Introduced Spreading throughout UK

Philanthus triangulum Hymenoptera 1 RDB2 Spreading throughout UK, now locally common.

Possibly in need of status revision

Eristalis tenax Syrphidae 1

Eupodes luniger Syrphidae 1

Table A1.1.5. Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting

201

Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes

Eristalis arbustorum Syrphidae 1

Eupodes luniger Syrphidae 1

Table A1.1.6. Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting

Species Order Number National Status

Notes

Anthophora bimaculata Hymenoptera 1 - -

Megachile maritima Hymenoptera 1 - -


Table A1.1.7. Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control


Notes

Andrena dorsata Hymenoptera 1 - -


Eristalis arbustorum Syrphidae 1 - -

Eristalis intricarius Syrphidae 1 - -


Eupodes luniger Syrphidae 1 - -

A1.2 - 2011 sweep net results Table A.1.2.1. Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting


Notes

Anthocomus rufus Coleoptera 1 Local

Holot richapion pisi Coleoptera 1 Local

Meligethes fulvipes Coleoptera 3 Notable/N Essex Red Data species

Phyllotreta atra Coleoptera 1 Local

Phyllotreta nigripes Coleoptera 2

Oscinella frit Diptera 1

Tephritis divisa Diptera 2 New to Britain 2004

Liocoris tripustulatus Hemiptera 4

Lygus pratensis Hemiptera 1 RDB3

Orius niger Hemiptera 1

Plagiognathus

arbustorum Hemiptera 2

Eupteryx urticae Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha 2

Crossocerus annulipes Hymenoptera: 1

202

Aculeata

Diodontus minutus Hymenoptera: Aculeata 1

Table A.1.2.2. Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting


Notes

Xysticus cristatus Arachnida: Araneae 2

Cryptocephalus fulvus Coleoptera 1 Local

Phyllotreta diademata Coleoptera 1 Local

Table A.1.2.2. Continued


Notes


Thaumatomyia glabra Diptera 1

Lonchoptera bifurcata Diptera 2

Leptocera nigra Diptera 3

Orius niger Hemiptera 2

Lygus maritimus Hemiptera 1

Lasioglossum leucozonium

Hymenoptera: Aculeata

1

Lasioglossum

minutissimum

Hymenoptera:

Aculeata

1

Lasioglossum pauperatum


4 RDB3 Regionally Important



Notes

Agalenatea redii Arachnida: Araneae 2 Local


Stenurella melanura Coleoptera 1 Local

Eristalis tenax Diptera 1


Philaenus spumarius Homoptera:

Auchenorrhyncha

1

Ammophila sabulosa Hymenoptera: Aculeata

1 Local

Episyron rufipes Hymenoptera: Aculeata

1 Local

Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera:

Aculeata

1 Notable/Na Regionally Important

Melitta leporina Hymenoptera: Aculeata

1 Local Essex Threatened

Pemphredon lethifera Hymenoptera: Aculeata

1



Notes


Ceratapion onopordi Coleoptera 1

203

Olibrus aeneus Coleoptera 1


Leptocera nigra Diptera 1


Auchenorrhyncha

1

Ammophila sabulosa Hymenoptera: Aculeata

1 Local

Lasioglossum leucozonium


1

Lasioglossum

pauxillum

Hymenoptera:

Aculeata

1 Notable/Na Regionally Important

Table A1.2.4. Continued


Notes

Lasioglossum puncticolle


1 Notable/Nb Regionally Important



Notes

Enoplognatha latimana Arachnida: Araneae 1 Local


Cheilosia vernalis Diptera 1

Lonchoptera bifurcata Diptera 1

Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 1

Thaumatomyia hallandica

Diptera 1 Unknown

Eurydema oleracea Hemiptera 1 Local

Table A1.2.6. Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting


Notes

Salticus scenicus Arachnida: Araneae 1



Syritta pipiens Diptera 1


Lygus maritimus Hemiptera 1

Neophilaenus campestris

Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha

1


Auchenorrhyncha

1

Anthophora bimaculata


1 Local



Notes

Enoplognatha latimana Arachnida: Araneae 1 Local

Tiso vagans Arachnida: Araneae 1


204

Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species

Meligethes fulvipes Coleoptera 2 Notable/N Essex Red Data species

Phyllotreta atra Coleoptera 1 Local


Sitona lineatus Coleoptera 1

Reichertella geniculata Diptera 1

Anthocoris nemorum Hemiptera 3

Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera: Aculeata

1

Lasioglossum pauperatum


4 RDB3 Regionally Important



Notes

Philanthus triangulum Hymenoptera: Aculeata

1 RDB2

A1.3 - 2012 sweep net results Table A1.3.1. Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting

Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes Erigone alet ris Araneae 1 Naturalised

Philodromus

cespitum Araneae 4

Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 12

Unident. Lacewing Chrysopidae 1

Episyrphus balteatus Diptera 1

Euleia heraclei Diptera 1 Local

Melanostoma mellinum

Diptera 2

Tephritis divisa Diptera 1 New to Britain 2004

Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 1

Unident. Miridiae Hemiptera 7

Philaenus spumarius Homoptera 1

Philanthus triangulum

Hymenoptera 1 RDB2

Table A1.3.2. Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting

Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 1 Local

Enoplognatha ovata

sens. str. Araneae 1

Neoscona adianta Araneae 1 Local

Xysticus cristatus Araneae 1


Unident. Weevil Coleoptera 2 Melanostoma

mellinum Diptera 1

Thecophora atra Diptera 1 Local

Unident. Diptera Diptera 8

205

Unident. Hemiptera Hemiptera 10

Andrena bicolor Hymenoptera 1

Colletes similis Hymenoptera 1 Local Lasius niger sens.

str. Hymenoptera 1

Unident. parasitica Hymenoptera 4

Unident. moth Lepidoptera 2



Notes

Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 2 Local


Unident. Apionidae Coleoptera 2

Unident. Curulionidae Coleoptera 2


Eristalis tenax Diptera 1

Melanostoma mellinum Diptera 2



Coriomeris denticulatus Hemiptera 1


Unident. Miridae Hemiptera 2

Andrena dorsata Hymenoptera 1 Local

Diodontus luperus Hymenoptera 1 Local

Oxybelus uniglumis Hymenoptera 1

Philanthus triangulum Hymenoptera 1 RDB2

Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 1



Notes


Erigone alet ris Araneae 2 Naturalised

Unident. Araneidae Araneae 1

Stenurella melanura Coleoptera 1 Local Unident. Apionidae Coleoptera 1

Unident. Bruchus sp. Coleoptera 1

Unident. Chrysomelidae Coleoptera

Unident. Curculonidae Coleoptera 4


Unident. Olibrus sp. Coleoptera 10

Melanostoma

mellinum Diptera 1





206

Hylaeus annularis Hymenoptera 1 Local

Passaloecus gracilis Hymenoptera 1 Pemphredon lethifera Hymenoptera 1





Notes



Philodromus cespitum Araneae 1


Unident. Curculionidae Coleoptera 2

Unident. Olibrus sp. Coleoptera 6 Melanostoma mellinum Diptera 3



Eurydema oleracea Hemiptera 1 Local


Philaenus spumarius Homoptera 1 Anthophora

bimaculata Hymenoptera 1 Local


Phalangium opilio Opiliones 1 Table A1.3.6. Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting


Notes

Chrysolina americana Coleoptera 1 Introduced

Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 1

Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 1 Eristalis tenax Diptera 1

Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 2 Unident. Diptera Diptera 4


Unident. Planthopper Hemiptera 4



Notes

Agalenatea redii Araneae 5 Local

Rhagonycha fulva Coleoptera 1

207


Sphenella marginata Diptera 1 Local

Unident. Diptera Diptera 5 Eurydema oleracea Hemiptera 2 Local


Unident. Nabidae Hemiptera 1


Colletes similis Hymenoptera 1 Local

Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 1

Table A1.3.8. Sweep net survey species, ISA8 - soft landscaping area


Notes






Unident. Pachynematus sp. Hymenoptera 1



Notes

Bathyphantes gracilis Araneae 1


Tephritis formosa Araneae 1 Local








Notes


A1.4 - 2013 sweep net results Table A1.4.1. Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting


Agalenatea redii Araneae 1 Local Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 2 Local

Philodromus sp. Araneae 2

Unident. Araneae Araneae 12


Unident. Salticidae Araneae 1

208

Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 4


Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 24 Unident.

Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2



Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 1 Lasioglossum

pauxillum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Na Regionally Important


Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 1

Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 1

Myrmica sabuleti Hymenoptera 1 Local Spilomena troglodytes Hymenoptera 1

Essex Red Data species, Essex Vulnerable


Unident. Lepidoptera Lepidoptera 1

Unident. Lacewing Neuroptera 1 Table A1.4.2. Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting


Araneus diadematus Araneae 2


Microlinyphia pusilla Araneae 1


Philodromus

cespitum Araneae 1


Unident. Cheiracanthium sp. Araneae 1

Unident. Dictyna sp. Araneae 1

Unident.

Philodromus sp. Araneae 3





Malvapion malvae Coleoptera 1

Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 6 Local

Oedemera nobilis Coleoptera 2


Unident. Longitarsus

sp. Coleoptera 3


209

Unident. Dolichopodidae Diptera 2


Brachymeria minuta Hymenoptera 2 Nr

Epyris niger Hymenoptera 1 Unknown

Lasioglossum leucozonium Hymenoptera 2

Lasioglossum

pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3 Essex Red Data species


Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Na Regionally Important

Lasioglossum

villosulum Hymenoptera 1

Panurgus calcaratus Hymenoptera 1 Local

Trypoxylon attenuatum Hymenoptera 1





Notes

Dictyna latens Araneae 2 Local




Unident. Araneidae Araneae 15 Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 10

Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 2 Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 7 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species

Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 4 Local Propylea quattuordecimpunctata Coleoptera 2






Diodontus minutus Hymenoptera 1 Lasioglossum leucozonium Hymenoptera 1

Lasioglossum

malachurum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb

Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 3 RDB3

Essex Red Data species, Regionally Important

Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 3

210

Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 66 Unident. Lepidoptera (micro) Lepidoptera 1

Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 7

Chorthippus parallelus Orthoptera 1



Notes




Tibellus oblongus Araneae 1



Unident. Dictyna sp. Araneae 1 Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 7





Unident. Longitarsus sp. Coleoptera 2


Unident. Platycheirus sp. Diptera 1


Unident. planthopper Hemiptera 1

Hoplitis spinulosa Hymenoptera 1 Local


Lasioglossum

malachurum Hymenoptera 3 Notable/Nb

Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 1







Notes



211

Mermessus trilobatus Araneae 1 Colonised




Unident. Araneidae Araneae 16 Unident. Cheiracanthium sp. Araneae 1

Unident. Clubiona sp. Araneae 1

Undent. Dictyna sp. Araneae 1



Notes

Unident Pardosa sp. Araneae 1 Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 7






Oedemera nobilis Coleoptera 1

Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 30 Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 1

Coremacera marginata Diptera 2 Local


Unident. Diptera Diptera 4 Unident. Dolichopodidae Diptera 1

Unident. Platycheirus

sp. Diptera 1


Athalia rosae Hymenoptera 1 Local

Brachymeria minuta Hymenoptera 1 Nr Lasioglossum leucozonium Hymenoptera 1


Essex Red Data

species/Regionally important

Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 2 Notable/Na Regionally Important

Lasioglossum



Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 1 Table A1.4.6. Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting


Notes


212


Heliophanus flavipes Araneae 1


Unident. Araneidae Araneae 5 Unident. Heliophanus

sp. Araneae 2

Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 3


Unident. Zygiella sp. Araneae 2 Table A1.4.6. Continued


Notes

Adalia bipunctata Coleoptera 1


Cassida rubiginosa Coleoptera 1 Coccinella

septempunctata Coleoptera 2



Eupeodes luniger Diptera 1




Ancistrocerus gazella Hymenoptera 1 Lasioglossum malachurum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb

Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 2 Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Na

Lasioglossum





Notes



Oedemera lurida Araneae 7 Local

Salticus scenicus Araneae 1



Unident. Dictyna sp. Araneae 3 Unident. Heliophanus sp. Araneae 1

Unident. Linyphiidae Araneae 2

Unident. Longitarsus sp. Araneae 1

Unident. Ozyptila sp. Araneae 1

213

Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 2


Unident. Theridiidae Araneae 1

Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 29 Coccinella septempunctata Coleoptera 1


Psyllobora vigintiduopunctata Coleoptera 1



Notes



Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 4 Andrena flavipes Hymenoptera 1 Local


Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 1 RDB3

Essex Red Data species/ Regionally important

Lasioglossum

pauperatum Hymenoptera 9 Notable/Na

Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 1


Spilomena troglodytes Hymenoptera 1 Essex Red Data species




Notes

Anelosimus vittatus Araneae 1



Unident. Araneidae Araneae 1 Unident. Philodromus

sp. Araneae 1

Unident. Tetragnatha sp. Araneae 1


Unident. Zygiella sp. Araneae 1 Anisosticta

novemdecimpunctata Coleoptera 1 Local


Propylea quattuordecimpunctata Coleoptera 1

Unident. Chrysomelidae Coleoptera 1


Eupeodes corollae Diptera 1

214

Eupeodes luniger Diptera 1


Unident. Syrphidae Diptera 2

Unident. Lygaeidae Hemiptera 1 Lasioglossum

leucozonium Hymenoptera 5





Notes


Unident. Philodromus sp.

Araneae 4

Athalia rosae Hymenoptera 2 Local








Notes




Appendix 2

A2.1 - 2010 pitfall trap results

Table A2.1. Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, summer 2010. Tables include counts of all invertebrate groups recorded within traps

plus species level identification of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera.

Group Species Status ISA1 - Woodland

ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrubs

ISA3 - Sand ISA5 - Herbaceous + shrub

ISA6 - Rubble

Collembola 1000 200 500

Hemiptera 500 200

Diptera 200 10

Aranea Spiders

Agelenidae Tegenaria agrestis Common 1

Tegenaria sp 1 1

Clubionidae Clubiona sp 1

Dictynidae Dictyna immature 1

Dictyna uncinata Common 1

Dysderidae Drassodes spp 1

Dysdera crocata Common 1

Gnaphosidae Drassodes lapidosus Common 1

Linyphiidae Linyphiidae immature 1

Lepthyphantes tenuis Common 1

Erigone dentipalpis Common 1

216

Table A2.1. Continued

Group Species Status ISA1 ISA2 ISA3 ISA5 ISA6

Oedothorax apicatus Common 1

Walckenaeria immature 1

Megalepthyphantes sp. nova (collinus occidentalis)

* Undescribed species

1 2

Liocranidae Agroeca inopina Local 4 1 1

Lycosidae Lycosidae immature 1

Salticidae Salticus immature 1

Zodariidae Zodarion immature 1

Zodarion italicum proposed Na 4

Total Aranea 15 5 3 1 6

Opiliones Harvestman 3

Coleoptera Beetles

Carabidae Amara aulica (Panz.) common 1 1

Amara convexiuscula v. local 1

Amara eurynota Panz. v.local 1 1

Brachinus crepitans L. Nb 1

Calathus ambiguus Payk. Nb 1 2

Calathus cinctus Mots. v. local 1

Calthus erratus Sahlb. local 1 1

Calathus fuscipes Goeze common 2 1 7 1

Calathus melanocephalus L. common 11 11

217



Harpalus affinis Schr. common 5

Harpalus ardosiacus Luts. Nb 1 3

Harpalus rubripes Duft. common 3

Leistus spinibarbis (Fab.) common 5

Nebria brevicollis (Fab.) common 1 11 13

Notiophilus quadripunctatus Dej. Nb 2

Polistichus connexus Fourc. RDB2 1

Pseudophonus rufipes Degeer common 1

Trechus quadristriatus (Schr.) common 6

Phyllotreta consobrina (Curt.) local 1 2

Coccinellidae Coccinella 7-punctata Lin. common 1 68

Curculionidae Sitona hispidulus (Fab.) common 1

Sitona lineatus (Lin. ) common 1 2

Hydrophilidae Helophorus rufipes (Bosc.) v.local 1 6

Staphylinidae Quedius molochinus (Grav.) common 1 1

Total Coleoptera 11 37 132 1 1

Hymenoptera Bees, Ants wasps

Formicidae Ants 10

Apidae Bees 1

Ichneumonidae Ichneumons 5

Hymenoptera total 5 11

Isopoda Woodlice 10 200 20

218



Pulmonata Slug 10 1

Chilopoda Centipede 5

* Megalepthyphantes spp. nova was first discovered in Britain in 1999 by P.R.Harvey at Minster undercliffs on the Is le of Sheppey. It has subsequently been

recorded at an increasing numbers of sites on shingle and outdoors and indoors in synanthropic situations in Kent, London and Essex. Although close to M. collinus occidentalis, it is thought to be a new undescribed species, which appears to have colonised Britain and is in the process of spreading.


Table A2.2. Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, summer 2011. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.

Group Species Status ISA1 ISA3 ISA 4 ISA 6

Collembola 2000 1000

Hemiptera 1000 5000 200

Diptera 100 300 500 50

larvae

Aranea Spiders 20 15 10

Opiliones Harvestman 2

Acari Mites 30

COLEOPTERA,

Beetles

Lucanidae Dorcus parallelipipedus 5

Coccinellidae,

Ladybirds Coccinella 7-punctata Lin. common 10 2

Staphylinidae, Rove beetles common 2

219


Invertebrate Group Species Status ISA 1 -

Woodland ISA 3 - Sand ISA 4 -

Woodland ISA 6 - Rubble

Total Coleoptera 50 100 20 10

Hymenoptera Bees, Ants wasps

Formicidae Ants 200

Apidae Bees

Bombus terrestris 1

Bombus lucorum 1

Crabronidae Diodontus luperus 2

Pompilidae Priocnemis parvula 1

Ichneumonidae Ichneumons 10

Parasitica 1 1 2

Hymenoptera total 1 214 4 0

Isopoda Woodlice 100 30 20

Gastropoda Slug 100 300 30

Snail 20 15

220


Table A2.3.1. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA1 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.

Species Group Number National status Notes

Diplocephalus cristatus Araneae 8

Diplostyla concolor Araneae 1

Lepthyphantes tenuis Araneae 4

Meioneta rurestris Araneae 2


Amara eurynota Coleoptera 2 Local

Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species

Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species

Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 10

Dasytes plumbeus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species

Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 12

Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 2 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species

Ophonus rufibarbis Coleoptera 2

Pterostichus madidus Coleoptera 2



Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2

Unident. weevil Coleoptera 1

Bethylus fuscicornis Hymenoptera 1 Local

Lasius flavus Hymenoptera 3


221

Table A 2.3.1. Continued


Myrmecina graminicola Hymenoptera 1 Local

Myrmica sabuleti Hymenoptera 24 Local

Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 5





Erigone dentipalpis Araneae 3



Phrurolithus festivus Araneae 1

Xysticus kochi Araneae 1 Local

Amara aenea Coleoptera 2

Amara apricaria Coleoptera 1


Anchomenus dorsalis Coleoptera 1



Calathus cinctus Coleoptera 1 Local


Calathus melanocephalus Coleoptera 1

Cordylepherus viridis Coleoptera 1 Local

222



Cryptocephalus fulvus Coleoptera 2 Local

Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 2

Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 2

Harpalus rubripes Coleoptera 1 Local


Oedomera lurida Coleoptera 1 Local


Ophonus azureus Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species


Silpha laevigata Coleoptera 1 Local

Unident. Bembidion sp. Coleoptera 1




Unident. Dolichopidae Diptera 1

Unident. Drosophila sp. Diptera 1

Kalama tricornis Hemiptera 1 Local


Andrena flavipes Hymenoptera 1 Local

Andrena minutula Hymenoptera 1

Anthidium manicatum Hymenoptera 1

Lasioglossum leucopus Hymenoptera 1 Local

Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 9

223



Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 3 RDB3 Essex Red Data species/Regionally Important




Myrmica scabuleti Hymenoptera 1 Local

Sphecodes crassus Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb

Essex Red Data species/Regionally

Important


Table A2.3.3. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA3 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae,

Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.


Arctosa perita Araneae 1 Local




Erigone atra Araneae 8



Oedothorax fuscus Araneae 1

Oedothorax retusus Araneae 2

Ozyptila sanctuaria Araneae 4 Local

Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1

224



Pelecopsis parallela Araneae 2 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important



Anisodactylus binotatus Coleoptera 1 Local

Byrrhus pilula Coleoptera 2







Loricera pilicornis Coleoptera 1


Scybalicus oblonguisculus Coleoptera 2 RDB1+ Extinct Essex Red Data species


Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata Coleoptera 2 Local


Unident. Chrysomelidae Coleoptera 1



Unident. Dyschirius sp. Coleoptera 1



Unident. Saldidae Hemiptera 1

225



Ammophila sabulosa Hymenoptera 2 Local


Andrena labialis Hymenoptera 3 Local

Andrena minutula Hymenoptera 1

Arachnospila anceps Hymenoptera 1 Local




Nysson trimaculatus Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important

Oxybelus uniglumis Hymenoptera 1


Sphecodes longulus Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Na Essex Red Data species





Alopecosa barbipes Araneae 2


Dysdera crocata Araneae 1




226




Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important

Passaloecus singularis Araneae 1

Phalangium opilio Araneae 3












Poecilus cupreus Coleoptera 3 Local





Unident. Elateridae Coleoptera 1




227







Table A2.3.5. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA5 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note. N.B. One pitfall trap was lost within ISA5.


Alopecosa barbipes Araneae 1







Pardosa agrestis Araneae 2 Notable/Nb


important








228



Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 1 Local







Anthophora bimaculata Hymenoptera 1 Local




Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3 Essex Red Data species/Regionally important









Dysdera crocata Araneae 1


229

Table A 2.3.6. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes


Talavera aequipes Araneae 1 Local

Tegenaria agrestis Araneae 1 Local

Trochosa ruricola Araneae 2

Unident. Tegenaria sp. Araneae 2

Unident. Trochosa sp. Araneae 1


Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 8






Lagria hirta Coleoptera 1

Notiophilus biguttatus Coleoptera 1



Unident. Elateridae Coleoptera 1




230




Pardosa prativaga Araneae 1

Trachyzelotes pedestris Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species



Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 12






Ophonus rufibarbis Coleoptera 3

Platydracus stercorarius Coleoptera 1 Local

Scybalicus oblongiusculus Coleoptera 1 RDB1+ Extinct Essex Red Data species



Formica cunicularia Hymenoptera 5 Local





important

Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 5 Notable/Na Essex Red Data species/Regionally important



231



Table A2.3.8. Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 8, 9 and 10 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target

groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note. N.B.results for ISAs 8,9 and 10 were combined as several pitfall traps were lost. In total five pitfall traps were collected from these soft landscaping areas.


Bathyphantes gracilis Araneae 3





Oedothorax apicatus Araneae 3 Local


Ostearius melanopygius Araneae 1 Naturalised



important


Pelecopsis parallela Araneae 1 Local

Amara aenea Coleoptera 1

Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 1






232









Odiellus spinosus Araneae 3 Local

Opilio saxatilis Araneae 4



important

Trachyzelotes pedestris Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important

Unident. Alopecosa sp. Araneae 2


Unident. Opiliones Araneae 7

Unident. Pardosa sp. Araneae 1

Unident. Trochosa sp. Araneae 1


Unident. Zelotine Araneae 1



233



Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important



Dorcus parallelipipedus Coleoptera 4 Local






Unident. Ophonus sp. Coleoptera 2


Unident. Lygaeidae Hemiptera 3


Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3 Essex Red Data species/Regionally important





Unident. Larva Lepidoptera 3

234



Arachnospila anceps Araneae 1 Local

Micaria pulicaria Araneae 2

Odiellus spinosus Araneae 1 Local



Pardosa pullata Araneae 1









Carabus violaceus Coleoptera 3







Unident. Carabidae Coleoptera 4



235


Unident. Heteroptera Hemiptera 1

Bombus terrestris Hymenoptera 1


Evagetes crassicornis Hymenoptera 1 Local


Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 3 Notable/Na


Megachile maritima Hymenoptera 1








Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note. N.B. One of the pitfall traps was lost from this survey area.


Arachnospila anceps Araneae 1 Local


Mitopus morio Araneae 7



Ozyptila simplex Araneae 1 Local

236





Trochosa ruricola Araneae 1















Paradromius linearis Coleoptera 1

Polistichus connexus Coleoptera 1 RDB2 Essex Red Data species


Silpha tristis Coleoptera 2




237




Unident. planthopper Hemiptera 1

Evagetes crassicornis Hymenoptera 2 Local


Hedychridium ardens Hymenoptera 1


Sphecodes geoffrellus Hymenoptera 1







Agelena labyrinthica Araneae 1


Pachygnatha degeeri Araneae 1




Unident. Amaurobius sp. Araneae 1


238











Unident. Ophonus sp. Coleoptera 1

Unident. Staphinylidae Coleoptera 5

Asiraca clavicornis Hemiptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species

Hedychridium ardens Hymenoptera 1










Erigone atra Aranaea 1

Micaria pulicaria Aranaea 1

239


Opilio saxatilis Aranaea 20

Ozyptila sanctuaria Aranaea 2 Local

Pardosa agrestis Aranaea 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally Important

Pardosa prativaga Aranaea 2

Pardosa pullata Aranaea 1

Phalangium opilio Aranaea 59

Unident. Araneae Aranaea 3

Unident. Drassodes sp. Aranaea 1

Unident. Opiliones Aranaea 81

Unident. Xysticus sp. Aranaea 5





Coccinella septempunctata Coleoptera 2











240



Unident. Longitarsus sp. Coleoptera 1



Unident. Sciomyzidae Diptera 12

Kalama tricornis Hemiptera 1 Local




Arachnospila anceps Hymenoptera 1 Local






Unident. Lepidotera Lepidoptera 1


Unident. Orthoptera Orthoptera 1




Unident. Acari Acari 1


241


Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally Important





Unident. Tegenaria sp. Araneae 1


Calathus fuscipes Coloeptera 4

Coccinella septempunctata Coloeptera 2

Curtonotus aulicus Coloeptera 2

Harpalus affinis Coloeptera 1

Harpalus rufipes Coloeptera 2

Hippodamia variegata Coloeptera 8 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species

Laemostenus terricola Coloeptera 1 Local

Unident. Coleoptera Coloeptera 3




Formica fusca Hymenoptera 5



242



Alopecosa pulverulenta Araneae 1





Phalangio opilio Araneae 7



Unident. Lycosidae Araneae 2



Xysticus cristatus Araneae 1














243


Unident. Dolichopidae Diptera 1

Unident. Sciomyzidae Diptera 1


Anthophora bimaculata Hymenoptera 1

Bombus lucorum Hymenoptera 1

Bombus pascuorum Hymenoptera 1

Bombus pratorum Hymenoptera 1

Bombus terrestris Hymenoptera 1



Lasioglossum malachurus Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb


Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3 Essex Red Data species/Regionally Important

Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 3 Notable/Na Lasioglossum pauxillum





Maniola jurtina Lepidoptera 3




244

Table A2.4.8. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA8a 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.






















Unident. Lacewing Neuroptera 1

245

Table A2.4.9. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA9a 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.


Unident. Acari Acari 1

Erigone alet ris Araneae 8




Ostearius melanopygius Araneae 2 Naturalist

















Andrena pilipes sens. Str. Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb

Essex Red Data species/regionally

important

246


Myrmecina graminicola Hymenoptera 1 Local



Table A2.4.10. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA10 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups

Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note. N.B. One of the pitfall traps was lost from this survey area.



















247



Unident. Planthopper Hemiptera 1

Myrmica ruginodis Hymenoptera 1

Sphecodes puncticeps Hymenoptera 1 Unknown



248

Appendix 3

Brownfield habitat assessment form (Roberts et al. 2006) Report type:

Site Visit: X Desktop Study:

Confidential: No

Site Name: Barking Riverside Office Landscaping

Surveyor: Dr Stuart Connop

Date: 06/08/2010 (survey date)

Site Location: Renwick Road, Barking, East London

Site Position: TQ 4691 8223

Owner/Manager: Barking Riverside Ltd

Local Authority: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Description: currently being developed as a new sustainable community. Aim of development is to incorporate existing brownfield diversity into the community landscape. One of the first stages of this is to design office landscaping on a brownfield theme incorporating habitat characteristics typical of this habitat.

Site History: Previously a coal power station with extensive areas of PFA lagoons, rough grassland and wetland areas. Considerable biodiversity interest prior to development. Ecological survey data available as part of planning application

Area: approx 0.5ha

Time Derelict: Actively managed as brownfield habitat

Risk: Current risk low

249

Site Access:

None: Part: All: X (* choose one)

Access Notes: Permission from Barking Riverside to establish a monitoring protocol for Natural England

Viewed from:

On site: X Site boundary: other: (please specify)

Current Activity:

Bulldozing/clearance

Fly tipping

Foot traffic

BMX bikes/motorcycles/cars

Small scale domestic tipping

None

Other: X (active landscape management)

Substrates:

Clay/loam X

Stones X

Rubble X

Concrete/tarmac X

Sand X

Other: Recycled glass/boulders/metal sheeting

Wet Areas:

Permanent water

River

Marsh

Seasonally wet areas X

Canal

Stream

Saline

250

Other: No wet areas incorporated into design although ephemeral wet areas have developed. Site is situated close to Thames and has numerous creeks and ditches nearby.

Vegetation

Vegetation types: Present Abundant

Bare ground X

Tall herb X

Scrub X

Sparse vegetation X

Creeping herb X

Tree X

Lichen/bryophyte 'heath'

Over-wintering herbaceous stems and fruitheads X

Other:

Plant diversity:

Not assessed Low: Medium: X High: (* choose one)

Flower diversity:

Not assessed Low: X Medium: High: (* choose one)

Flower abundance:

Not assessed Low: X Medium: High: (* choose one)

Vegetation present: Present Abundant

Annual mercury X

Crane's-bills

Drought-stressed bramble X

Fleabanes

Gorse X

Knapweeds X

Labiates X

Legumes X

Mallows X

251

Present Abundant

Mayweeds X

Oxeye daisy X

Ragworts X

Reeds

Sorrels

St. John's Worts

Stonecrops

Thistles

Toadflaxes

Weld or Mignonette

White Bryony

Wild carrot X

Wormwood

Yellow asteraceae X

Yellow crucifers X

Yellow/white umbels X

Other: X (See species list Appendix A)

Negative types:

Bracken

Buddleja X X

Japanese knotweed

Nettles X

Sycamore X

Other:

Invertebrates:

Low: Medium: X High:

252

Appendix 4

Location of fixed-point markers at Barking Riverside offices, Barking, East London.

N.B. Fixed-point marker for BR4 is the same as for BR3; Fixed-point marker for BR8 is the

same as for BR7; Fixed-point marker for BR12 is the same as for BR11; Fixed-point marker

for BR15 is the same as for BR14. (Aerial photo © Getmapping.com)

TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance:

Documents

Transcript of TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance: