Invertebrate conservation news

wake
be wu we by
uu - ge abet Bee
‘a oe : sea peebee
i ‘ : Sane
ey SS ste ds: Tee :
heeded opus’ ees a ass, s
ON RENE By ee este tee : ey : : : ;
a” Aas epena act, , p Wievavrucis ic :
> oe ~~ TNS ig. Seri 3 2 5 x
yess wey a : Piste :
s : Sr
Seat
+835 <

Tiyae sens
an joy ps
. : ras J bear re A
recente meee
cod haa i PeMUUN woiaah Ses ernes
an pera ty
Sanes rons : $ fanines oregon easy
prone ere ¢ an Soares fen ThuineLangiad ote
. ee Rpts Kem WON nage WAP Br
r i : z ‘ 3 ead ann < am eats
4 é : Deve wit ; anne sends a oo
E : ! raat 51 Nbubaiym brine vhs
sooo td, x Sher ‘ 4 ; ration naw Uh eet ae
3 : Was : ts “ ; Buia see ray So 7 :
eee $ female ’ % “s POs diay oe
n Sade et i rs 3 , i : : 2 i
: : : veivecantad : : oe 2 : f : : reapers web
ee y : se eithsey enh : : : teat amen ee phe mia
ete <5. ‘ ray ve , vireee Ss sphonnerhs
7
onendewe se : ‘ ra E ; : Dubnenbonmeve’
Ve, ; 2 i 3 . ane aes ae in . Rath eit
: : = : : ; ree ,
ara onan See od dunes Sue yresennay, : : : ‘ ¢
ete Fie esha se 2 * :
eae = : bow eh , 7 2 ‘ :
anee ease: ow ‘ % a ‘
Sataoe Se é
ee ~
ane way
Fi |

tweoy)
: orb
aes

aedevtbai sane
beter, ier Bib pape
Gi enveny by =f inkekr rare
: KTR DmuAeby yng
. - ie hia a
: : erat : ates
etetes Weg, ' ee
She est BH wey r 2 SPM tug!
set ao a mdb tha Wma ecte,
‘ " vice
: : A 3 2 acre ata set
: i ; > ; = 3 peas ery
Ladehs i : eccvadss
: : : : Ser Fen Beet wee A
4th ont eg? MW eredt, mane
ae rer

Us Ensvgin es
: $ oie ¥ enn
: % b oe
5 Warenveye rE Te ed 2k:
i ‘ pot fi BY tone
i ive : : Oren
= : z £
ae 5 A eu £ d
ore : ;
NE cay : ‘ ;
4 = : ~ 3
Shs gias

ng hg nen
ee eee ae
Dhabi

earn ee
aah meena
pasar et : bree tea
5 , ; : ere patanne ae
SE ey f “, é 4
“ace a, “ Y

APRS

2 tein See sie ctin dn DSN Pr eciart i
E guokun aa 2 Ngee ib Dace TE
TENN ee a Rinse woes bao.
ig ANA Bh yey ends pre ws Pa
Baas ef sv uke 7 Pred ..
Sadat Surtees saw : ae sete ry
Rang re : heed chakra tates etal p - se
: Se UB otra MANA ee TAR sy ay :
: Spee Rew ee enc
soomge : é STigieneuabes pes
ae 20s Rabon - -
- “ n A pose PHS ange 4 ‘ Se
ae oe eres 3 . castle > i i
rey oe rar oes "s

Shere

Matar
Berio aura Rvs vee oo
eee res eicecsbayiataeecdorse
deere 3 a z :
is ater ieee ms Cay
aw ee Tort ea ewy ; . etaete Loepeeteaed
ae oe =
ann gE
" eesesbietece
feeee
ra ieatane!
Sak ewia x
. . Ret te
EAP Suse -
pebeda Roe pig :
sae het oe were

ete
Seno
: : : Non mnt
om : Evie rena meee Gee
vam Porn es) neu
rote ueeey
SOE BRS ee 7.
nr a :

es pews.
3 oedipal tla a
eee 3 se
7 : a tet
Nir mri costes :
Saab wn tarde :
TEN Wm dort ey yee ss Nae ene
ee ete renee
Powe pesias”
wre

- ie ge
poehusaeenn ya ae
“aa

By sete
we hear

eae

: erortirseads
rasa Ney : > :
Sewrse se

seidendva ng?

tin

Hewsb gee
sw axam oe

SF Foe 18 ae a tae
Ptvem 9630545, ao

pnd ede

aes

re waives opcey’
tat awene ey Sate ees ‘
Sen eno SWiaearees

res
pete ers

Pwr Wena

Coie 7 - :

ea been .

Pa Tete red

Soi 8 wee :
? ae oar

ered lee
oman
Acarcy

caw avers ol
Lane cerrarrapiad

nearer

ern:
a

Number 15 oe a95 | October 1994

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION

|
|
|

ISSN 1356 1359 General Editor David Lonsdale

The Amateur Entomologists’ Society

ICN Editor: David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Martin Harvey

Conservation
Officer

Founded 1935

33 Kings Road, Alton,

Hants. GU34 1PX.

12 Cater Road, Lane End,

High Wycombe, Bucks.
HP14 3JD.

AES Conservation Committee

Reg Fry

The Hawthorns
Frating Road
Great Bromley
Colchester
Essex CO7 7JN

Darren Mann

129 Clifford Bridge Road
Binley

Coventry

West Midlands CV3 2DX

Colin Hart
Fourpenny Cottage
Dungates Lane
Buckland
Betchworth

Surrey RH3 7BD

Stephen Miles

469 Staines Road West
Ashford

Middlesex TW15 2AB

Owen Lewis

School of Biological
Sciences

University of Birmingham
Edgbaston

Birmingham B15 2TT

Martin Harvey
Address as above

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Illustrations by Mike Hill

NOTICE

It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of
this Journal are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings,
financial grants offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide.
Neither the Editor, the Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held
responsible for any loss, embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION
NEWS

No. 15, October, 1994

EDITORIAL

Long before conservation was “invented”, a wealth of wildlife flourished on
farmland and in managed forests. Many farmers and foresters believe that this
proves that wildlife and human land use are essentially compatible. They
argue that, given a favourable economic climate, they can afford to retain and
enhance wildlife habitats on their land, and they point to many examples
where this is being achieved. There are, on the other hand, conservationists
who would argue that financial incentives for farming or forestry tend to
encourage intensification of land use, with consequent damage to habitats.
Can both these views be valid and, in any case, how can conservation in the
commercially managed landscape be best encouraged?

Undoubtedly, there is considerable scope for habitat conservation in
farmland and in commercial rainforests, particularly around the edges of
planted areas, such as forest rides or field margins and hedgerows. Some
farmers and foresters take pride in the wildlife that often thrives in areas like
these and often express a gut feeling that conservation is an automatic
consequence of “good” land management. However, good farming or forestry
usually means maximising crop yields, whose share of limited raw materials
— sunlight, water and mineral nutrients — decreases as the crop’s share
increases. Thus, taken to its logical extreme, economically good management
is inimical to the existence of wild plants and animals.

Clearly, there is no logical basis in the cosy idea that “good” management
has automatic benefits both for wildlife and for crops, even though they often
co-exist in practice. There are two more satisfactory explanations for this co-
existence, the first of which is that wildlife survives because the system of
crop production is not entirely efficient; i.e. the crop is intercepting less than
one hundred per-cent of the available resources. This may still be consistent
with good farming or forestry practice, since there is often no economic
benefit in squeezing the highest possible yield from the land. The second
explanation is that land managers deliberately retain or even enhance wildlife
habitats at the expense of some loss of yield because they value wild plants
and animals. This concern may be partly altruistic, or it may reflect the
“sporting” or recreational value of uncultivated areas.

(2) OCTOBER 1994

Although farming and forestry have been lumped together so far in this
discussion, they are viewed rather differently by naturalists. Thus, although
forestry and agriculture can attract equal criticism over serried ranks of
conifers in the one case and arable “deserts” in the other, there seems to be a
consensus that forestry offers the greater potential for conservation. This may
be why forestry has tended to attract relatively more complaints from amateur
entomologists who have given up any hope of pursuing their interest in a
barley field, but who still want to see woodlands full of butterflies or wood-_
boring beetles.

There are several reasons why forests, even if managed solely for timber
production, may outpoint intensively managed agricultural land in the
wildlife stakes. For example, in a young plantation many plants and animals
can utilise the spaces between the trees until canopy closure occurs. Before
any stems are marked for the first thinning, many trees will die from
suppression and become a habitat for a limited range of deadwood
invertebrates and fungi. For economic reasons, there is also generally less use
of insecticides and fungicides in forests than on farms. These factors create
built-in inefficiencies which reduce the yield below the theoretical maximum,
even though the forester generally accepts them as normal. Corresponding
inefficiencies are not usually tolerated by the modern farmer (who, for
example, wouldn't dream of deliberately leaving part of his crop
unharvested), although he has his marginal land, his hedgerows (perhaps!)
and his field headlands — just as the forester has his woodland rides and his
“unplantable” areas. We should note in passing, however, that woodland rides
are needed for forest management, unlike many of the hedgerows which have
been grubbed out on arable land.

Neither farmers nor foresters enjoy interference from conservationists
when it involves statutory restrictions on their right to manage land however
they might have wished. Compensation payments can sugar the pill, but they
can also bring about abuse of the system. Nevertheless, today's farmer in the
European Union is fairly resigned to the imposition of many laws and
financial structures which limit his right to do as he pleases. Against this
background of controls, some degree of coercion in the interests of
conservation might not seem out of place. This could be exercised by making
a conservation plan for each farm and forest. Any serious infringement could
lead to the loss of grants, tax incentives and other financial privileges. This
may sound Draconian, but such a scheme, unlike the Wildlife and
Countryside Act (1981), would not criminalise defaulters.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 15 (3)

SPECIAL NOTICE TO READERS

PUBLICATION OF INSECT (INVERTEBRATE) CONSERVATION NEWS

The longest gap ever between issues of /CN emphasises the difficulty of
producing this newsletter on a spare-time basis. Also, the circulation of ICN
has been far too small to justify the efforts involved in its production.
Another problem was that the inherently poor quality of the duplication
process that was used for issues 1-14 did not do justice to the content and
quality of ICN. The AES Council has considered these problems and has
decided that publication of JCN should continue, but with the wider
circulation and better print quality that can be achieved by incorporating it
within the main AES Bulletin. For the present, we hope to include an issue of
ICN in every other issue of the Bulletin; i.e. thrice-yearly. At the same time,
the name has been changed to Invertebrate Conservation News in line with
the enlargement of the (now) Joint Committee for the Conservation of British
Invertebrates to cover all non-marine invertebrates. The content will, of
course, reflect the new title whenever there is an opportunity to range beyond
insects.

The new publication system has brought about some important changes as
far as our readers are concerned. The changes affecting each category of
readers are as follows:

AES members will not need to pay any subscription for CN, since they
will now receive it as part of the main Bulletin. Members who paid in
advance for ICN No. 15 or beyond and who require a refund should write to
the CN editor (address inside front cover of the Bulletin) before Ist May,
1995. Any members who wish to receive the separately bound version can, of
course, subscribe to it as can non-AES readers.

Non-AES subscribers will continue to receive a separately bound version
of JCN, for which there will be an annual fee, currently £3.50. Subscribers
who have paid for issues in advance will be invited to renew their
subscriptions when the balance of their payments has been used up.

Organisations which exchange their newsletters or magazines for JCN will
continue to receive it as a separately bound item.

INVITATION TO CONTRIBUTORS

Articles, reports and “letters to the editor” on any aspect of invertebrate
conservation are welcome. In this context, conservation can include almost
anything that affects or could affect populations of invertebrates in the wild.
Thus items dealing with damaging or beneficial activities or with field studies
relevant to conservation will all be welcome. However, contributors should
note that observations of year-to-year fluctuations in the abundance of species
or the appearance of rare migrants should be sent to other outlets (including
the main AES Bulletin); such events are often very interesting to field
naturalists, but [CN is more concerned with the longer term status of
invertebrate species.

(4) OCTOBER 1994

There is no strict limit on the length of contributions but special
arrangements may be needed in the case of long items (1.e. over 2500 words),
which will sometimes have to be “held over” until there 1s sufficient space in
an issue of the AES Bulletin to accommodate them. One big advantage of the
new format is that monochrome photographs can now be accepted, in limited
numbers, for inclusion in JCN. On some occasions, it may also be possible to
include colour photographs. We hope that this, together with the generally
improved appearance of the print quality, will encourage contributions!

Contributions should be sent to the /CN Editor, whose address appears.
inside the front cover in every issue of the AES Bulletin. They should be
typed or clearly written, double line spaced and with a margin of at least one
inch (2.5 cm) all around each sheet. Word-processed copy on floppy disks
(3.5 inch, DOS-format) is also very welcome provided that the file format is
either ASCII and/or WordPerfect (5.0 or 5.1). Return postage should be
included with any disks which the author wishes to receive back. The editor
reserves the right to edit or shorten contributions, but will usually seek the
author's approval before publishing edited text. The deadline for receipt of
items will generally be about ten weeks before publication of the next issue,
but it may sometimes be possible to accept short items (e.g. notice of
interesting events) about six weeks before publication.

NEwS, VIEWS AND GENERAL INFORMATION

THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF BRITISH
INVERTEBRATES

Most of our readers will be aware that, since 1965, the JCCBI has been the
“umbrella” body for insect conservation in the UK. The “T’ in its name now
stands for “Invertebrates”, following a decision to invite participation from
groups whose interests lie with other terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates.
Its current member bodies are as follows:

Member organisations Observers
Amateur Entomologists' Society Biological Records Centre
Balfour Browne Club Countryside Council for Wales
British Arachnological Society English Nature
British Dragonfly Society The Forestry Authority
British Entomological and Natural History Society Joint Nature Conservation Committee
British Isopoda Study Group ADAS (Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries
Butterfly Conservation and Food
Conchological Society of Great Britain & Ireland Ministry of Defence
Joint Committee for the Conservation National Trust
of the Large blue Scottish Natural Heritage
Department of Entomology, The Natural History (The JCCBI is itselfa member of
Museum Wildlife and Countryside Link)

Royal Entomological Society

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 15 (5)

The AES provides information and views on various issues which are
referred to it via JCCBI for consultation. Some of these are policy matters,
e.g. the quinquennial review of the list of species protected by law, the
European Habitats Directive, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and the future
of state forestry in Britain. Others concern specific sites, like the proposed
East London river crossing through Oxleas Wood, a proposed golf course
extension on an important Isle of Man orthopteran habitat site and a proposed
tourist centre in the Burren, Ireland. (We hope to publish details about some
of these things in future issues of /CN.)

The JCCBI recently needed to seek support to enable it to continue, and
this was eventually achieved in the form of secretarial assistance from the
Royal Entomological Society. During the search for support, it was realised
that the aims of the JCCBI needed to be updated and publicised, and so the
following mission statement was prepared.

JCCBI MIssion STATEMENT (1993)
RATIONALE

Approximately 96% of known animal species in Britain are invertebrates, yet
the 4% which are vertebrates attract the majority of conservation efforts. This
imbalance must be addressed and the importance of invertebrate faunas must
be recognised for conservation goals to be achieved.

MISSION

The mission of the JCCBI is to promote the conservation of terrestrial and
freshwater invertebrates.

SCOPE

The Committee works primarily in Great Britain but offers its expertise
worldwide.

COMPOSITION

The JCCBI is a committee of eleven national societies and organisations
concerned with invertebrate conservation. Its membership of about thirty
persons also includes observers from official organisations and specialist co-
opted members.

OBJECTIVES AND THEIR ACHIEVEMENT

The Committee's objectives and corresponding activities include:
OBJECTIVE:-— in all aspects of conservation, to give invertebrates the
prominence that they merit on the basis of their ecological and intrinsic value.

ACTIVITY:— makes representation on important national and international
issues through and with support of Wildlife & Countryside Link and other
organisations.

(6) OcTOBER 1994

OBJECTIVE:— to help to counteract the accelerating destruction, alteration
and isolation of habitats; processes which are the chief causes of extinction
and decline in invertebrate faunas.

ACTIVITIES:— through published codes and guidelines, emphasises that
proper habitat protection and management are the key to invertebrate
conservation, rather than the mere scheduling of species.

— draws attention to the need for adequate public funding for the protection of
sites where valuable habitats occur.

— makes representations on issues concerning individual sites which may
need protection, advising on the special needs of invertebrates.

— plans to set up a clearing house to facilitate contact between (a) those who
seek to protect sites and (b) experts in the survey of particular invertebrate
taxa.

OBJECTIVE:— to promote the satisfactory protection and management of
habitats at sites which have been designated for wildlife conservation. |

ACTIVITY :— provides guidance to site managers either directly or through
its constituent societies.

OBJECTIVE:— to help to ensure the survival of populations of threatened
species.

ACTIVITIES:— advises on the status of species under consideration for legal
protection.

— arranges surveys of the status of species under possible threat, aiming to
improve understanding of their habitat requirements so that their conservation
can be enhanced.

OBJECTIVE:-— to promote understanding and co-operation between
conservation bodies and those who, by studying invertebrates as amateurs or
professionals, have the ability to contribute towards wildlife conservation.

ACTIVITIES:-— acts as a forum for discussion and for the formulation of
common goals.

—produces codes of conduct for field biologists studying or wishing to
conserve invertebrates.

OBJECTIVE:— to promote the quality and scope of survey, monitoring,
research and education.

ACTIVITIES:— produces guidelines for survey standards, identifies research
needs and channels educational advice through its constituent organisations.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VOL. 15 (7)

Unfortunately not all JCCBI's intended activities can be pursued at present
since, under present financial constraints, it will have to concentrate almost
exclusively on providing a forum for discussion and occasionally sending
letters to governments and to other organisations. The Mission Statement was
based on a decision, made in the early 1980s, that the JCCBI should seek to
take on the functions of a national society for insect (now invertebrate)
conservation. The other option then considered was that a new society should
be formed, rather along the lines of the Xerces Society in America. This was
rejected partly because the member-organisations of JCCBI felt that their
shared aims in conservation should not be “hived off” in this way. However,
it was perhaps not appreciated how difficult it is for an organisation like the
JCCBI to progress very far beyond the talking-shop stage, and indeed some
of its members are nowadays happy for it to be a talking shop, while their
societies pursue their own particular aims.

As far as the AES is concerned, we now feel a little more free to go ahead
with projects which we might previously have expected to be established
under JCCBI auspices. The most important of these is our scheme for local
representation, as mentioned below in the message from Martin Harvey.
However, the Society is not in a position to take on all the roles of a body
dedicated to the conservation of insects (let alone invertebrates), since
conservation is only one of its aims. If any organisation is to play these roles,
it must either be a better funded JCCBI or a newly constituted Society. The
AES Conservation Committee needs to know what members of the Society
think about the options for the future. One suggestion is that the JCCBI
should hold a short conference in 1995, at which all interested parties can
have their say. In the meantime, all views are welcome and should be sent to
either of the Society's reps. on the JCCBI; Darren Mann or David Lonsdale.

THE AES CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

Since the last appearance of JCN, the membership of the Committee has
changed and so we are listing the current members here. Their addresses can
be found in the AES membership list and, in some cases, also in the “where
to write” panel in the AES Bulletin. We must sadly note here the death of
Peter Cribb, who served as our Committee's Chairman for many years and
who did a tremendous amount to pioneer the cause of insect conservation. A
full obituary appeared in the AES Bulletin.

The current membership of the Committee is: Colin Hart (Chairman),

Martin Harvey (Habitat Conservation Officer), David Lonsdale and Darren
Mann (JCCBI reps.), Reg Fry, Owen Lewis and Stephen Miles.

(8) OCTOBER 1994

NEWS FROM THE AES HABITAT CONSERVATION OFFICER
Martin Harvey, 12 Cater Road, Lane End, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP14 3JD.

As this is my first “formal” communication since becoming Habitat
Conservation Officer (HCO) last year, perhaps I should introduce myself. As
you might expect, I am an amateur entomologist with a keen interest in
invertebrate conservation. I have been an AES member since about 1975,
with my main interest in Lepidoptera, but with a general interest in many
other groups. After ten years as a professional musician, I now work as
Publications Officer for the Nature Conservation Bureau in Newbury,
Berkshire. I see my main role as HCO to be that of co-ordinator, providing a
link between members, professional entomologists and other organisations,
so that invertebrate conservation issues can be addressed effectively by as
many interested people as possible. I am always willing to discuss
conservation matters, so please get in touch if there are any issues which
concern you, or if you have any suggestions about what the AES
Conservation Committee should be doing.

AES AREA CONSERVATION REPRESENTATIVES

In the 1980s, my predecessor, Clive Betts, set up a network of “Area
Conservation Representatives” which successfully enabled the AES to
become involved in a variety of conservation matters. In recent years,
however, this initiative could not be sustained, due in large part to the
energies of the Conservation Committee being taken up by producing the
AES book on the conservation of insect habitats. We are now re-launching
the area representative scheme.

Area reps are the main link between the AES Conservation Committee and
local, specific conservation affairs. If the AES is to become involved in
invertebrate conservation throughout the UK we need individuals who can act
as local contact points, bringing local matters to the Committee's attention
and doing whatever they can to promote the cause of invertebrate
conservation. The following are the main activities which the Committee
suggests each area rep should pursue.

1. Acting as a local “‘access point” for local groups and individuals who may
wish to contact the AES to ask for advice.

2.Passing on information about local sites or issues to the AES, especially if
these involve threats to the survival of any invertebrate species in the
locality, thus enabling the Society to support site protection both by
preparing data and by making representations where necessary.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VOL. 15 (9)

3.Ensuring that, for sites of special value not currently recognised as such,
details are sent to relevant local bodies such as the county Wildlife Trust, to
national schemes, especially the Invertebrate Site Register, and also to the
AES, so that the Society will be aware of any need to give advice or
assistance when site designation is being considered.

4.Promoting invertebrate conservation as widely as possible within the local
area, as far as the representative's time and enthusiasm allow. It may be
particularly valuable for the representatives to ensure that invertebrate
issues are raised with other local conservation groups with which she or he
is involved.

5.Putting forward ideas for other things that area reps could usefully be
doing!

Further (optional!) activities could include:

6. Organising field meetings of interest to invertebrate conservationists, on the
joint behalf of the AES and one or more local or national organisations.

7.Making representations at Public Inquiries, on behalf of the AES and/or co-
operating local bodies, if both the rep concerned and the Society agree that
this would be appropriate

The main requirement for area reps will be that they must be enthusiastic!
No expert knowledge is required, although obviously the experience of our
reps will be a useful resource in itself. The Conservation Committee will
provide as much back-up as possible, and is in contact with experts in many
fields who can offer advice where necessary. If you are interested in
becoming an area conservation representative, or simply wish to discuss
conservation matters, please contact me, Martin Harvey, at the above address.

(By the time you read this, I should have contacted those people who were
previously area reps to see if they would be willing to carry on. If you were a
rep, but have not yet heard from me, please get in touch in case I do not have
your details on file.)

} SITES AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL INTEREST
PorTON Down Moro PROJECT

In 1993 Sarah Miles, a member of the Moth sub-Group of the Porton Down
Conservation Group, carried out a comprehensive survey of the area's moths,
gathering data on the abundance of the species present at different times of
year. Writing in the Ministry of Defence conservation magazine Sanctuary
(No. 23: 1994), she points out that no such survey had previously been done
for moths at the Porton Down military ranges, although she was able to draw
upon the results of two smaller-scale studies done in 1970 and 1984.

(10) OCTOBER 1994

Using a Robinson mercury vapour trap, together with other equipment
including a mercury vapour lamp suspended over a white sheet, Sarah Miles
recorded 157 macro-moths, of which 71 were new records for the area. This
brought the total list to 219, including species recorded in earlier studies. As
far as micro-moths were concerned, 75 species have so far been recorded, of
which 53 were new additions to the Porton Ranges list, including a new
record for the county of Wiltshire; Depressaria badiella which feeds on
various Compositae and often uses gorse or juniper for resting as an adult.
Among these micro-moths was also a thriving population of a Red Data Book
(RDB) Category 2 species, the Auriferous pearl (Mecyna flavalis), whose
foodplants include members of three different plant families. Another rare
find among the micro-moths, classified as “Notable A” in the national status
report of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee was Microstega pandalis,
whose larvae form webs and cases on wood sage, marjoram and golden-rod.

None of the macro-moths recorded was a RDB species, but there were
scarce or local ones such as the Balsam carpet (Xanthorhoe biriviata),
Reddish light arches (Apamea sublustris), Ear moth (Amphipoea oculea),
Flounced rustic (Luperina testacea), Peacock (Semiothisa na) and Thyme
pug (Eupithecia distinctaria).

These findings help to emphasise the ecological value of Porton Down
which, as many readers know, is already noted for the plants, birds,
butterflies and spiders which occur on its 4,500 acres (1,820 ha) of
undisturbed and rabbit-grazed chalk downland — the largest such area in
England. Sarah Miles comments that, along with the Breck and Roche Court
Down, Porton provides a “vital time-capsule” in which species can survive
without intrusion or disturbance. A zone of 3,033 acres (1,227 ha) is
designated as a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and a SPA (Special
Protection Area).

The value of many MoD sites for wildlife is well known to many
naturalists, and some of them have joined local groups which work with the
MoD to provide survey information to assist site management, and whose
findings are reported in Sanctuary, the MoD's excellent wildlife magazine.
However, there has been concern in recent years that defence cutbacks are
leading to disposal of land for uses which will not allow wildlife to flourish.
Conversely, there are concerns about intensification of defence training in
other areas, as training grounds in Germany become unavailable. Training is
generally far less harmful to wildlife than urban developments or intensive
agriculture, but it can harm some kinds of habitat, quite apart from the
problem of reduced access for walkers and naturalists in the areas affected.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VOL. 15 (11)

PEAK DISTRICT QUARRIES: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Dan Jagucki, a student at Manchester Metropolitan University, has written to
ask if we can supply any information on the invertebrate fauna of disused
limestone quarries in the Peak District. He is doing a project on the
colonisation of these sites in relation to their age and their stage of
vegetational succession. Anyone who can help should write to Dan at: 105
Otley Old Road, Leeds LS16 6HH.

MOTH SURVEYS IN GREAT BRITAIN

Many of our readers will be aware of the projects that Dr Paul Waring, past
AES President, has been organising in recent years. He has kindly kept us up-
to-date with all this work but, just when all this interesting news was
beginning to reach us in the late 1980s, CN went into the decline that has
only now been reversed. In future issues, we will be highlighting some of the
achievements of these survey schemes. For the time being, here is some more
general information that may interest readers who would like to take part.
Under the old NCC, there was a Moth Conservation Project which focused on
the Barberry carpet (Pareulype berberata), Reddish buff (Ascometia
caliginosa), Essex emerald (Thetidia smaragdaria maritima), Viper's bugloss
moth (Hadena irregularis), New forest burnet (Zygaena viciae) and Black-
veined moth (Siona lineata). Under the JNCC, which took on the NCC's
national core activities, a “National Review of the Recordings and
Conservation of the Rarer Moths” was developed with the help of a network
of recorders. Surveys of species in addition to those listed above have been
organised, including the Striped lychnis moth (Cucullia lychnitis).

More recently Butterfly Conservation has extended its interest to the larger
moths, and Paul Waring is running the National Moth Conservation Project
under its auspices. One of his current projects is a survey of the Goat moth
(Cossus cossus), and some of our readers have already responded to his
requests for information on its occurrence in Britain.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS ON INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION
an overview by Martin Harvey

Invertebrate conservation may still receive little attention in comparison to
bird or plant conservation, but it has gained much more recognition in recent
years, and this is indicated by the growing number of books on the subject.
This is a “round-up” of currently available titles, and we hope to keep you up-
to-date with new publications in future issues of /CN.

Most AES members should by now be aware of the very successful

Habitat Conservation for Insects — a Neglected Green Issue, edited by Reg
Fry and David Lonsdale (AES 1991). The first comprehensive guide to

(12) | OCTOBER 1994

practical conservation of insect habitats, it has sold well and a second edition
is planned. It was followed by another good general guide, Habitat
Management for Invertebrates: a Practical Handbook by Peter Kirby (RSPB
1992). Although less comprehensive than the AES book, it is clearly laid out
with essential points picked out in bold type. These two books should be
essential reading for anyone involved in habitat management. They are
complemented by the AES pamphlet Legislation to Conserve Insects in
Europe compiled by Mark Collins (AES 1987).

One particular habitat resource, dead wood, has received much attention,
partly because of its importance for many invertebrates and also because it
has become scarce in areas where managers have not realised how important
it is. Dead Wood Matters: the Ecology and Conservation of Saproxylic
insects in Britain, edited by K.J. Kirby and C.M. Drake (English Nature
1993) should go some way towards addressing this problem; the papers it
contains cover a variety of subjects including evidence from fossil insects,
management guidelines and a most useful account of the “threat” that dead
wood poses to commercial forestry (in the vast majority of cases, this threat is
small or non-existent).

Many of the most threatened of our invertebrates have been given “Red
Data Book” status by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC,
formerly part of NCC). Details of these are published by JNCC in British Red
Data Books; 2. Insects (Shirt 1987), and 3. Invertebrates other than Insects
(Bratton 1991). Following on from these books, JNCC has published a series
of Reviews of Scarce and Threatened (Insects) of Great Britain. Currently
available are reviews of: pyralid moths (Parson 1993), Hemiptera (Kirby
1992), Coleoptera part 1 (Hyman and Parsons 1992), Trichoptera (Wallace
1991), Neuroptera (Kirby 1991), bees, wasps and ants (Falk 1991), flies part
1 (Falk 1991) and Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera (Bratton 1990). These
reviews list Red Data Book and Nationally Notable species, giving
distribution details and management suggestions where these are available.

Of the other invertebrate groups to have been studied from a conservation
point of view, butterflies have received most attention. One of the
publications on this group is another useful contribution from the former
NCC: The Management of Chalk Grasslands for Butterflies (Butterflies under
Threat Team 1986). Also, The Butterflies of Britain and Ireland by Jeremy
Thomas and Richard Lewington (Dorling & Kindersley 1991) gives much
information on habitats and on conservation issues, as well as being a good
general butterfly book. Butterfly Conservation by Tim New (Oxford
University Press 1991) gives a general account of worldwide conservation
issues.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEWS, VOL. 15 (13)

Chapman and Hall publish a variety of books on conservation, many of
which are scientific reference works. A particularly readable example is
Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation by Ernest Pollard and
Tina Yates (1993). This is a fascinating account of the information that has
resulted from the national Butterfly Monitoring Scheme, much of it shedding
new light on conservation problems. Most of the excellent publications from
Harley Books (such as the multi-volume Moths and Butterflies of Great
Britain and Ireland) give consideration to conservation matters, as do many
of Richmond Publishing's Naturalists’ Handbooks.

Another very encouraging trend in recent insect publications has been that
an increasing number of local atlases have included conservation information.
Two examples are Colin Plant's Larger Moths of the London Area (London
Natural History Society 1993), which, though having no separate
conservation chapter, is quite obviously written from a conservationist's
points of view, and Jim Asher's Butterflies of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire
and Oxfordshire (Pisces Publications, see AES Bulletin for review) which
includes much information on habitat requirements and local threats.

Of course, many of the journals specialising in invertebrates also carry
information of interest to conservationists. British Wildlife magazine covers
conservation generally, but usually has a strong invertebrate content,
including reports from several of the national recording schemes.

We intend to include a regular letters section and book
reviews not already covered in the Bulletin in future issues of
ICN. This was not possible in this issue due to lack of space.

Any letters concering conservation issues are welcomed by
the editor.

CONTENTS

Editorial 3. abt 26. SRT eS ROR EERE phe Oe SIRE inc Vt RSs Rice 5 LAE SRL ot (1)

Special NOEs to TEAMETS Wes He ae AE Cr eRe dah oN cs a ea) a (3)
Publication of JCN
Invitation to contributors

News: Views and Generalunformation:. fhe. ee ee eee et een (4)
The J.C.C.B.1.

J.C.C.B.I. Mission statement
The AES Conservation Committee
News from the Habitat Conservation Officer
AES Area Conservation Representatives
Sites:and’Species:of' Special Interest. oa a tel ee (9)
Porton Down
Peak District quarries: Request for information
Moth surveys in Great Britain
Recent publications on Invertebrate Comservation,..2../ 2 (11)

NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this Journal are
solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants offered or sought,
requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the Officers and Council of the
Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss, embarrassment or injury that might be sustained
by reliance thereon.

© 1994. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 20th October 1994 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from 4 Steep Close, Orpington, Kent BR6 6DS.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

Number 16 _ = et | February 1995

BAF 7S ie ISSNalS 5651359
* A publication of
Wi The Amateur Entomologists' Society General Editor David Lonsdale

The Amateur Entomologists' Society

Founded in 1935

ICN Editor: | David Lonsdale

33 King's Road, Alton, Hampshire GU34 1PX.

AES Habitat Conservation Officer: | Martin Harvey

1 Arrowfield Cottages, Rotherfield-Greys,
Henley-on-Thames, Oxon.

AES Conservation Committee

Reg Fry

Colin Hart

Owen Lewis

Darren Mann
Stephen Miles

Martin Harvey

The Hawthorns, Frating Road, Great Bromley,
Colchester, Essex CO7 7JN.

Fourpenny Cottage, Dungates Lane, Buckland,
Betchworth, Syrrey RH3 7BD.

School of Biological Sciences, University of
Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT.

104 Albert Street, Canton, Cardiff CF1 8JP.
469 Staines Road West, Ashford, Middlesex TW15 2AB.

Address as above.

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 ATA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Illustrations by Mike Hill.

NOTICE

It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this Journal
are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants offered or
sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the Officers and
Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss, embarrassment or injury that
might be sustained by reliance thereon.

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION
NEWS

No. 16, February, 1995

Editorial

It is just over a quarter of a century since ICN first appeared under its
original title as the AES Conservation Group Bulletin, and the next few
editorials will ask how much success has there been in tackling the
problems that were then being highlighted. Then, as now, we were
pointing out that habitat destruction was the main problem causing the
decline and extinction of invertebrate populations. We also tried to
discourage unscrupulous activities by a minority of field naturalists, in
particular “over-collecting”. Both messages were — and remain — valid,
but experience now proves that governments and international agencies
find it much easier to target unscrupulous naturalists than to control
habitat destruction.

The criminal law can certainly help to conserve populations of many
vertebrates, on which collecting or hunting can have a major impact. For
terrestrial invertebrates, however, collecting usually involves a very much
smaller proportion of their populations, which consist of relatively large
numbers of individuals with high rates of both fecundity and mortality.
Even so, for species brought to the brink of extinction through habitat
destruction and isolation, the precautionary principle suggests that there
must be situations where collecting could be the last straw. There is no
scientific evidence to support the arguments of those who think that legal
protection of invertebrate species ought to be as wide-ranging, for
example, as that applying to birds in the UK. Nevertheless, the laws in
some other countries are applied to many invertebrates for which
collecting is not a credible threat; for example Mark Collins revealed in
AES Pamphlet No. 13 (1987) that it is an offence to collect any species of
ladybird in the Flemish region of Belgium.

(2) FEBRUARY 1995

It would be hard to prove whether the criminalisation of collecting
endangered species has helped their populations “on the ground”, but it
has been accepted by a wide range of entomologists who would not in
any case wish to collect such species. In Britain, the voluntary code for
collectors, published by the Joint Committee for the Conservation of
British Invertebrates (JCCBI), is widely respected by naturalists. However,
most serious field entomologists seem firmly against the idea of legal
protection for long lists of species, not only because collecting is necessary
for the study and identification of most taxa, but also because they value
their personal freedom. Even in Britain, however, the current law raises
anxieties over the possession or sale of legally acquired specimens of
scheduled species, since possessors of fully protected species can be
found guilty unless they can prove otherwise.

The increasing attention paid to invertebrate conservation in nature is a
very welcome development, but it is also becoming a source of
disagreement over the need for legal restrictions on the individual. Those
who have responsibility for reserves have a very understandable desire to
control things that happen “on their patch”. More seriously, unauthorised
activities can interfere with specific conservation management objectives.
The JCCBI has recently discussed these issues, and one suggestion that it
considered — and rejected — was that collecting any invertebrate on a
nature reserve without authorisation should be made punishable by law.
This discussion took place within the context of the JCCBI's drafting of a
policy document on the role of law in invertebrate conservation. This
document, now finalised, sets out clear criteria for deciding when a
species could qualify for full legal protection. This document will be
published in a later issue of ICN, once the list of signatories has been
announced.

The JCCBI document on legislation also deals with the control of
introductions or re-introductions. The document states that:

“Introductions or re-introductions should normally be controlled by
law only when they involve species or genetic forms not native to the
state concerned. Exceptions may be necessary for economic reasons
as well as in the interests of wildlife conservation.”

Perhaps with this last point in mind, Butterfly Conservation is now
arguing for legal controls on the release of any of the rarer British butterfly
species, since such releases can undermine conservation management
objectives. This could be done by adding these species to Schedule 9 of
the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as explained by Alan Stubbs on behalf
of Butterfly Conservation in this issue of ICN. The proposal deserves

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 16 (3)

careful consideration, since field naturalists should not condone activities
which threaten valid conservation programmes. However, as in all
activities not directly harming other human beings or their property, the
criminal law should be invoked only with good reason.

News, Views and General Information

Quinquennial review of 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act

In Britain, the lists of legally protected plant and animal species are
reviewed every five years. We learned in November that proposed
changes in the next review were to be sent to the Joint Committee for
Nature Conservation by mid-February, but this gave no chance to invite
suggested proposals via ICN. However, we hope that ICN readers will
have an opportunity to comment on any proposals that are made; this
might help to prevent any unsuitable proposals being “given the nod” by
those of us who sit on committees. We do not yet know of any proposed
additions of invertebrate species to Schedule 5, which relates to
collecting, disturbance and trade. However, there will be a proposal from
Butterfly Conservation that certain butterflies should be added to
Schedule 9, which relates to the release of species into the wild.

The proposal, drafted by Alan Stubbs, reads as follows:-

Proposal

All British Red Data Book and Notable Butterflies should be added to Schedule
9, making it illegal to release these species except under licence.

Notable = Nationally Scarce = Pink Species (species currently occurring in
no more than one hundred 10km squares in Great Britain).

At present, these butterflies are listed under Schedule 5. Some species are
fully protected; the rest require a licence for trading of wild-caught specimens
(under Section 9[5]).

Schedule 9, Part 1, is subject to Section 14. It is 14 (1) which controls release
of non-native “kinds” of animal, even those not listed in the Act [14 (1) (a)].
However, there is also provision to list species which are established or
otherwise resident [14 (1) (b)]. This reads:-

14. — (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person releases or

allows to escape into the wild any animal which —
(a) is of a kind which is not normally resident in and is not a regular
visitor to Great Britain in a wild state;

or
(b) is included in Part 1 of Schedule 9, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) FEBRUARY 1995

History of Proposal

The concept and its reasons were floated at the 58th meeting of the JCCBI
held on 20th October 1994, allowing some discussion of the implications. On
30th October the Conservation Committee of Butterfly Conservation (BC)
further reviewed the implications and decided that the proposal was necessary
and should be forwarded to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC),
the government agency handling the Quinquennial Review consultation. The
JNCC observer at that meeting considered that Schedule 9 was an appropriate
means of achieving the objective. At the JCCBI Executive Committee meeting
on 12th December, the proposal was discussed, and a statement from BC was

requested by representatives of two of the national entomological societies
(BENHS and AES).

No-one welcomes having to use legal measures. However, if there are
problems that can be best resolved using legislation provided by Parliament,
then that is the route that has to be faced.

In making this proposal, BC is aware that it is a sensitive issue, both for
those who oppose controls and those who support them, but BC feels that
action must be taken in the best interests of conservation.

Proposals have to be received by JNCC by mid-February 1995. JNCC will
be issuing a consultation document incorporating all submissions, thus giving
societies and other interested parties a chance to comment. It is open to
anyone to counter this proposal. However, it will need to be shown that the
problem does not exist or — if it does exist — that the reasoning is wrong and
that alternative equally effective measures can be adopted.

Reasons for the proposal

1. There is widespread concern that butterflies are being released
surreptitiously, rather than with consultation and co-operation with the
conservation bodies.

2. The voluntary principle does not work; indeed there are strong adherents of
private release who are unlikely to relinquish their freedom of action.

3. The JCCBI has published a code of practice, Insect Re-establishment — a
Code of Conservation Practice, which is widely ignored. Procedures to
encourage people to submit notice of releases, let alone seek consultation
over proposed releases, have met with almost zero co-operation from the
general fraternity of those who are effecting private releases.

4. Now the conservation movement has taken butterfly conservation on
board, increasingly treating butterflies as high profile flagship species, there
is little excuse for individuals to act alone. Entomologists should be able to
achieve far more for butterflies by encouraging the conservation bodies by
working with them, rather than against them.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 16 (5)

Increasingly, the future of butterflies depends on a more detailed
understanding of their ecology and response to management. Surreptitious
or other unofficial releases can be disruptive and lead to the wrong
measures being adopted by the conservation bodies.

There are already examples of research being ruined by unannounced
releases, and this can happen one, two or three years into a project. After
all the time, effort and finance, how would you feel as the person doing the
research or responsible for the site? In one such classic case the research
had been funded by a conservation body. What message does that send?
What confidence can funding and grant-giving bodies have in their
continued support of butterfly research?

Many butterfly sites have their populations monitored. Very often one of
the objectives is to monitor the ability of the site to support butterflies. It is
essential to know the natural population levels and carrying capacity and, if
numbers are falling, to respond by adjusting the management. If someone
is quietly releasing butterflies, all may appear well until those releases stop.
Then suddenly, and too late, it is revealed that the habitat has become
unsuitable to support the resident population.

Uncontrolled releases could be of stock from anywhere. The conservation
movement is concerned that local stock should be used. There is an
increasing awareness that there are local genetic differences, ata
physiological level even if not in appearance. New techniques such as
genetic fingerprinting are likely to highlight further the desirability of
avoiding further confusion and uncertainty over the origin and nature of
populations.

Furthermore, it is a moot point whether Section 14 (1) (a) prohibits release
of foreign stock of species that are resident in Great Britain; it would need
a test court case to decide whether “animals of a kind” means not only
species, but also genetic forms (eg the release of foreign races of the
Swallowtail). Listing in Schedule 9 would close this loophole and would be
quite explicit under 14 (10) (b).

10. A great deal of effort goes into recording schemes at county and national

ite

levels. Part of the objective is to repeat such activity at intervals in order to
understand the wildlife health of the countryside and the changes which are
occurring for better or for worse. There is little point if one is recording the
unnatural status of species resulting from unadmitted releases, sometimes
on sites that cannot naturally support the species anyway. Any conservation
message that action is necessary to prevent further decline of butterfly
habitat in the countryside is obscured, weakened and perhaps lost.

Most of the Red Data Book and Notable Species occur predominantly on
reserves and other sites owned or managed by conservation bodies, or are
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) where the statutory conservation

FEBRUARY 1995

agencies have a responsibility. The concern is to protect and manage the
flora and fauna that naturally occur in such places. The presence of species
implies success in managing sites to maintain those species. Special
butterflies often require special management objectives and it is grossly
unfair if surreptitious release is giving the wrong messages about priorities
and management.

12. With freedom goes responsibility. The freedom or “right” to release

butterflies wherever one wishes has to be set against the freedom of the
conservation bodies to be free from the disruptive activities considered
above. What right has anyone to release butterflies on to someone else's
land without permission? If people are using freedom irresponsibly. then it
must be no surprise if legal controls become necessary.

13. The focus is on butterflies, since that is where the problem lies. If similar

concerns should arise with other taxa, the Schedule 9 mechanism can be
adopted.

Operation of licensing

£

The licensing authority would be the Depariment of the Environment
(DoE). acting on the advice of the statutory conservation agencies.

. A licence would be considered only if it were supported by one or more of

the conservation bodies (eg county wildlife trust. National Trust eic.) and
indeed a leading society (or JCCBI) may also be appropriate backers. As a
matter of course. it would help to have the backing of the local officer for
the statutory agency. indeed esseniial if an SSSI were concerned.

t would need io be clear that the principles laid down in the JCCBI code
(or similar required code) were met. Key statements would need fo include
whai was to be released, how it would be done. habitat management
implications, the likelihood of success and plans for monitoring.

This proposal upholds the principle that release has a valid purpose, in
appropriate circumsiances. and does noi diminish the role of the amateur.
The means is offered to provide a legitimate route, working with the
conservation movement, whilst prohibiting irresponsible independent
action.

Research workers face additional bureaucracy in obtaining all the

permissions required, but this has to be offset against the current risk that
their research effort could be negated by a single unplanned release.
Providing that the statutory agencies are properly informed, as they should
be anyway. the mechanisms at office level ought to be easy to arrange.
There will be concern that there are too many inconsistencies and
uncertainties in the operation of Schedule 5 licences at DoE. There are
inherent problems from the wording of the Act. The Schedule 9 situation is
different, clear-cut rather than ambiguous, and easier to handle.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEWS, VOL. 16 (7)

Comments on this proposal are invited from all ICN readers, and will be
taken fully into account by the AES Conservation Committee and by the
Society's Representatives on the JCCBI when the time comes to vote on
the issue. The apparent failure of voluntary controls is particularly worth
examining.

AES Area Conservation Representatives in Britain

Martin Harvey, Habitat Conservation Officer
12 Cater Road, Lane End, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP14 3JD.

At the time of writing we have five AES Area Conservation
Representatives, and their names are given below. If you have a local
conservation issue you wish to raise with an Area Representative, or if
you could offer him or her any help, please write to him or her enclosing
a SAE and giving your AES membership number. If you are interested in
becoming an Area Conservation Rep yourself please contact me for
further details.

Dave Hemingway

13 Ashdene Garth, Crofton, Wakefield, West Yorkshire WF4 1PH.

Neil Jones
31 Drummau Road, Birchgrove, Swansea SA7 9QA.

Dr Helen Marcan
49 Red House Road, Bodicote, Banbury, Oxfordshire OX15 4AZ.

Robert Partridge
11 New Road, Mepal, Ely, Cambridgeshire CB6 2AP.

Geoff Trevis
14 Old Coach Road, Droitwich, Worcestershire WR9 SBB.

Sites and Species of Interest

_ A specialised moth in Cornwall?

_ Dr F.N.H. Smith, writing in the Ministry of Defence conservation
magazine Sanctuary (No. 23, 1994), asks some interesting questions

about the very local pyralid moth, Apomyelois bistratiella neophanes,

| which was found at the Penhale MoD training area, Cornwall in 1991. In
_ A Field Guide to the smaller British Lepidoptera, edited by A.M. Emmet,

the larval food source of this micro-moth is recorded as the fungus

| Daldinia concentrica, growing on “dead birch, less often on gorse or other
_ plants, especially on burnt stems”.

(8) FEBRUARY 1995

Following the appearance of the moth in a light trap, Dr Smith
investigated the hillside above the trap site, where all the gorse had been
burnt two years earlier. On many of the larger charred stumps, he found
numerous fruit bodies of D. concentrica which, as its common name King
Alfred's cakes implies, look like balls of charcoal, several centimetres in
diameter. He found larval frass around many of the fruiting bodies and
verified the presence of the moth by rearing some adults from one of the
stumps.

Dr Smith's observation at Penhale suggests that the moth's presence
there is dependent upon the availability of burnt gorse, which is of course
restricted to relatively infrequent periods. Birch, the other typical “host”
tree for the moth, is virtually absent at the site. The moth could not be
found at Penhale by 1992, by which time fruit bodies of D. concentrica
had become hard to find. Dr Smith wonders whether the moth might be
able to follow the scent of burning gorse many miles distant, but this
question perhaps presumes too firmly that a burnt substrate is needed by
either the larvae or adults. This supposition is perhaps ruled out by the
fact that the host fungus is also used by the larvae when it fruits on
unburnt birch and other plants. The fungus is actually found most
commonly on ash trees, but it could be that ash tends to occur in biotopes
which are not suitable for some stage in the moth's life cycle.
Alternatively, perhaps, the species of host tree affects the quality of the
fungus as a larval food source.

Road schemes in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and
Northamptonshire

The Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust
has drawn attention to the many sites in its area that are threatened by
planned road building and widening schemes. Its September 1994 issue
shows a map of the region concerned, annotated with a summary of
potential damage at each site. Of the twenty-one sites, seventeen are
designated as nature reserves, SSSIs or county wildlife sites. Some of the
main biotopes that would be affected are wetlands, chalk grassland and
woodlands, all of which are important for threatened invertebrate species.
Particular species mentioned by the Trust are the Black hairstreak at sites
along the M1, for which widening is planned through Bedfordshire and
Northamptonshire, and the Small blue and Grizzled skipper at Badgers
Hill County Wildlife Site, which stands in the way of the proposed Luton
East Circular Road, North. |

- INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VoL. 16 (9)

Book Review

Insect Conservation Biology by M.J. Samways, Chapman & Hall, 1994,
xvit+358pp, ISBN 0 412 45440 8, hardback, £37.50.

The growing popularity of conservation in western countries has not been
matched by a public awareness of the nature and relative scale of the
damage that human activities inflict on different forms of wildlife.
Vertebrate taxa receive most of the attention, but this book assembles a
body of compelling evidence to show that the risk of extinction is greater
for insect species, not only because there are immensely more of them,
but also by virtue of their often exacting habitat requirements. The first
chapter illustrates the evolutionary adaption of insects to almost every
terrestrial ecosystem. The author draws on some interesting data; for
example in a survey of Seram rain forest, over half the estimated 43.3
~ million individual arthropods in one hectare were Collembola, reflecting
the importance of habitats in the soil. The very success of insects, which
has produced perhaps 10 million extant species, belies the vulnerability of
many species which are so closely adapted to geographically restricted
biotopes that even a slight change can wipe them out, often to the point
of total extinction. In the tropics, both the diversity of species and the
threats to them may seem to make British conservation issues pale into
insignificance. However, despite our relatively small insect fauna, our
_ ratio of species to land area appears to be surprisingly high by world
standards.

The remaining introductory chapters describe the many ways in which
insect habitats have been damaged, while also outlining the aims and
responsibilities of national and international organisations which seek to
ameliorate this loss. A central problem, which has‘a chapter of its own
later in the book, is the fragmentation of biotopes. This is less serious for
the relatively mobile animals, especially birds, whose requirements often
seem uppermost in the minds of those who influence conservation policy.
Fragmentation prevents species from re-colonising suitable sites following
chance local extinctions. In the longer term it could also prevent species
from keeping pace geographically with climatic change or other large-
scale events (as many did during past glaciations). When fragmentation
and other problems are viewed in the context of tropical ecosystems,
current conservation efforts seem inadequate in scale and often
inappropriate in emphasis.

The author goes on to examine ways in which conservation could
become more effective by taking proper account of insect population
ecology. The ability of species to disperse in a fragmented landscape must

(10) FEBRUARY 1995

be understood in order to determine the optimum size and shape of
reserves and the value of different types of “corridor” between otherwise
isolated habitats. He stresses the need to think about very small-scale
“micro-sites” within biotopes, which are essential for survival. Studies on
single species show that their different developmental stages and
sometimes the two sexes have greatly different micro-site requirements.
This does not necessarily mean that we must tinker with sites to help
favoured species, since a broader-brush management of the landscape
can achieve diversity in a way that is compatible with the economic use of
the land.

Although there are still places where the protection of natural
ecosystems is the main objective of conservation, there are many other
parts of the world where the sympathetic management of agricultural and
other “disturbed” land is important. The author describes systems of
“adversity agriculture” in which populations of vulnerable species can
often fall below a “minimum viable level”, leading to local or even total
extinctions. This has happened even to former pest species such as the
Rocky Mountain grasshopper (Melanoplus spretus) in North America. The
risk of extinction is lower in “agroecology” systems, in which areas of
natural vegetation can support a high proportion of the local insect fauna
while serving as refugia for natural enemies of crop pests. There are,
however, no absolute rights and wrongs in agricultural methods. Burning,
for example, is very harmful to many species, but others depend upon it.
Similarly, although biological control is often a “green” alternative to the
use of chemical pesticides, it can be disastrous when the agents released
are able to persist and to attack non-target species.

The author looks at the pros and cons of “restoration ecology” and
concludes that it is worthwhile in some cases, as when trees are planted
for agroforestry in deforested tropical areas, or when herb-rich grassland
is re-established in temperate farmlands. Restoration strategies can be
helped by knowing the specific requirements of individual species, but the
most vulnerable species are usually less able to recolonise the restored
sites than widespread ones with greater tolerance of varied conditions.
Some of the vulnerable species get special attention and can be artificially
re-established, but the author sees this as the last resort.

The rate at which insect species are being lost worldwide, according to
one estimate quoted by the author, could be nineteen per hour over the
next thirty years. Such figures serve both to stimulate concern about
individual species and to emphasise that attempts to save a favoured few
cannot address a problem of such proportions. The need is for an
“umbrella” approach which can take account of both small-scale and

- INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VOL. 16 (11)

large-scale elements of the landscape. To the extent that individual
species can be helped, there is a need to improve methods of assessing
their status; for example by recording the number of habitat sites per
10km square; not just mapping a dot for the entire square. Attention also
needs to be focused on species which are good indicators of diversity and
which can be recorded efficiently in site surveys, rather than on taxa
which happen to enjoy the most popularity. On a global scale, it is
important to identify the regions of “mega-diversity” and endemism
where efforts should be concentrated.

By concentrating on the biology behind conservation, this book helps
to identify the most urgent uses to which time and money should be
devoted. However, the author admits that such an analysis is not
supported by human attitudes towards insects, which often involve
taxonomic favouritism or hypocrisy, as exemplified by those who are less
aware of their own daily mass slaughter of insects than of the sadism of
pulling the wings off a fly. Governments that ignore the wider
conservation issues may pass laws to protect species against collecting or
trade, but the result is often a high black market price.

The book's extensive bibliography testifies to the great deal of work that
has gone into producing it. Its emphasis on fundamental issues and on
scientific evidence will complement other recent works which have
concentrated more on practical conservation. A subject like this is
intrinsically hard to divide into distinct sections, but there could perhaps
have been less overlap and repetition of ideas. It required a good index,
and the one provided here is certainly comprehensive, although it fails to
list all the entries for some important topics. The author's commitment to
the cause makes this much more than a dry academic treatise, but it will
perhaps be more useful to students, research workers and policy makers
than to the amateur conservationist. (Thanks are due to the British
Journal of Entomology and Natural History for permission to reproduce
this review here.)

Future Meetings
6-7th April 1995, London.

Conference on “Conserving Europe's Bees’, Linnean Society of London/
International Bee Research Association.

G2) FEBRUARY 1995

The four sessions are: (1) Habitat for bees, (2) Grappling with bee
diversity, (3) Do plants need bees? and (4) Competition in bee-plant and
bee-bee interactions. For further information contact:-

CONSERVING EUROPE'S BEES,

THE LINNEAN SOCIETY OF LONDON, BURLINGTON HOUSE, PICCADILLY,
LONDON W1V OLQ.

22nd April 1995, Royal Entomological Society of London, 41 Queen's
Gate, SW7.

Amateur Entomologists' Society AGM and Members Day. Starting at
llam. All welcome. Talks and practical demonstrations will acoompany
the meeting. Guests are invited to bring along an exhibit. Please contact
Wayne Jarvis, 9a Brook Street, Luton, Bedfordshire LU3 1DS to book
space or for further information.

Letters

It should be noted that we received the following letter six years ago! It is
still topical, despite having been “held over” while ICN was in the
doldrums, and so we are happy to publish it. The ICN item that sparked it
off expressed concern over the practice of removing dead trees to make
woodlands safer for the public...

Woodland Trust deadwood policy
from Pamela Harding,
Woodland Trust Legal & Information Officer.

I would like to respond to your item in the May 1988 issue of ICN
concerning the Woodland Trust and its approach to dead wood
habitats.

Almost all Woodland Trust properties are open to the public and
the Trust takes seriously its responsibilities towards visitors, which
includes the necessity of some tree safety work. This aspect of the
Trust's management tends to be stressed in publicity material, perhaps
wrongly so, since in most Trust properties there will be many areas left
as non-intervention areas. In some woods dead wood habitats are
being created and extended by management work.

The item in question has picked up a few rather isolated examples
from the Trust's literature. | could quote to you an item on the back
page of the Trust's Newsletter 26 on the [1987] storm. “Fallen,
damaged or dead trees that are not actually dangerous have been left,
as rotting wood is a valuable habitat for fungi and insects”.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VOL. 16 (13)

In Newsletter 25, which reported on the storm on the front page,
there was a sub-heading “Dead Wood is Valuable” with a brief
explanation. These are just two examples.

The Woodland Trust aims to strike a balance between several
objectives, including conservation, in the management of its
properties. It also aims to educate the public about the need for
woodland management. The Trust believes that it is fulfilling these
roles more successfully than many other landowners and deserves
credit for doing so.

Adding species for legal protection
from Peter Tebbutt,
Abingdon, Northamptonshire.

ICN 15 somewhat surprised me with its statement (on page 5) that the
AES provides information etc that the JCCBI uses in its
recommendations on the quinquennial review of species protected by
law. If that is the case, then how come EVERYONE was astonished
that the High brown fritillary was added to the fully protected list and
that many of the restricted species are there only because of the
pressure that Butterfly Conservation now exerts. One of its recent
publications now makes it perfectly clear that it would like at least 25
species of butterfly to be totally protected. Unless we want to return to
our childhood days, when we kept just a few Large white caterpillars
in a jam jar, then the JCCBI with its representatives from the AES and
BENHS will have to bring in a better line of reasoning than they are
presently using, or the fanatical (and usually ill-informed) will succeed
in outlawing everything that most AES members enjoy doing (ie
collecting and breeding butterflies), with fines being dished out in all
directions. | do not wish to get really into this subject but I sincerely
hope that a good dose of common-sense prevails before our hobby is
completely ruined by unecessary regulations.

Editor's note: The AES and most other member-organisations of JCCBI give authority to
their councils to represent their interests. A more democratic arrangement might be
desirable, but would usually not be feasible, since in most instances, votes could not be
taken in time to respond to the issues in question. All we can do is to try harder to publicise
proposals to which society members may wish to respond. In the case of the High brown
fritillary, the JCCBI accepted evidence for serious decline. No-one submitted evidence to the
contrary, but perhaps too few people knew what was going on around committee tables.

CONTENTS

E.cittorizal: 2 sires eee ee tJ CU oe te HO a OC

News=Views and’ General information csc ee eee

Quinquennial Review of 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.
AES Area Conservation Representatives in Britain.

Sites‘and: Species of Interests... chelate sa aes Oe Seer ee alae cee

A specialised moth in Cornwall?
Road schemes in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire.

Book Review 2 ce ee Pe a RS a ir el ee

Woodland Trust deadwood policy.
Adding species for legal protection.

NOTICE

© 1995. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 28th February 1995 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from 4 Steep Close, Orpington, Kent BR6 6DS.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this Journal
are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants offered or
sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the Officers and
Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss, embarrassment or injury that
might be sustained by reliance thereon.

Number 17 June 1995

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION
~\ NEWS

es tte ISSN) 1356 1359
MY “A publication of
W/ The Amateur Entomologists' Society General Editor David Lonsdale

The Amateur Entomologists' Society

Founded in 1935

ICN Editor: | David Lonsdale

33 King's Road, Alton, Hampshire GU34 1PX.

AES Habitat Conservation Officer: | Martin Harvey

10 Kiln Ride, Upper Basildon,
Berkshire RG8& 8TA.

AES Conservation Committee

Reg Fry

Colin Hart

Owen Lewis

David Lonsdale
Darren Mann
Stephen Miles

Martin Harvey

The Hawthorns, Frating Road, Great Bromley,
Colchester, Essex CO7 7JN.

Fourpenny Cottage, Dungates Lane, Buckland,
Betchworth, Syrrey RH3 7BD.

School of Biological Sciences, University of
Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT.

Address as above.
104 Albert Street, Canton, Cardiff CF1 8JP.
469 Staines Road West, Ashford, Middlesex TW15 2AB.

Address as above.

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Illustrations by Mike Hill.

NOTICE

It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this Journal
are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants offered or
sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the Officers and
Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss, embarrassment or injury that
might be sustained by reliance thereon.

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION
NEWS

No. 17, June, 1995

Editorial

It is good to see that invertebrates are now appearing more on the
conservation agenda of non-specialist or vertebrate-based organisations
than was the case in the late 1960s, when we began complaining about
their neglect. However, the situation “on the ground” has often not
improved correspondingly. Awareness of invertebrates needs to be
matched by building their habitat requirements into decision-making
within all aspects of conservation activity. One such aspect is the
acquisition of nature reserves and the designation of other protected sites.
These site-based measures provide opportunities for managing habitats in
ways which might be hard to achieve under normal systems of land use.
However, such sites are usually far apart and cannot, in themselves, help
much to maintain the distributional status of the many invertebrate
species whose mobility is relatively poor.

People who have at best a superficial interest in invertebrates need to
be more aware of this limitation when considering sites for purchase as
reserves. In some cases, proper awareness of invertebrate habitats might
influence site selection. In other cases, funds might more usefully be
devoted towards promoting conservation in the everyday landscape,
within the constraints of economic land use. This could be greatly helped
through replacing existing agricultural subsidies by grants, payable in
return for participation in sustainable and “eco-friendly” management
schemes. :

Despite the need to avoid relying too much on nature reserves and
other designated sites, these sites have an important role in conservation,
and their managers should be as well informed:as possible about the
biological diversity that they purport to conserve. Inevitably, the

management of these sites will favour the habitats of some species at the

(2) JUNE 1995

expense of others. Site managers should therefore be aware of the full
range of habitat requirements of the plants and animals that depend on
the site, or could come to depend on it. This does not mean that all
management should be deferred pending a total species inventory; on the
contrary, much can be achieved through recognising indicator species
and features which help to identify biotopes within the site. It is simply not
good enough merely to “garden” the site in favour of selected species
which happen to be attractive to humans, even though the funds for land
purchase may have been generated through the “taxonomic favouritism”
of a generous public. Neither is it good enough to preserve a set of rather
coarsely defined “textbook” biotopes without understanding the wide
range of types of habitat requirement of the invertebrate species that
occur on the site (as well as those that could sensibly be judged suitable
for re-establishment by natural or artificial means). To take just one
example, a herb-rich grassland that existed during traditional grazing may
have consisted of a dynamic mosaic of different sward heights, together
with ant-hills and patches of long grass or scrub. Misguided ideas about
sward management can lead to over-intensive grazing or mowing, devoid
of sensitive and responsive rotational management. The result is an over-
simplified vegetational structure in which vital elements of habitat for
many invertebrate species are destroyed.

Finally, we must consider adequately the habitat requirements of
invertebrates whenever proposed changes in land use are placed before
the public authorities. In many instances, the destruction of a habitat on
the site concerned could threaten the long-term viability of neighbouring
populations by isolating them beyond the normal dispersal range of the
species concerned. We can begin to improve the current unsatisfactory
situation by making it clear what should be expected of an environmental
impact study. To this end, the Joint Committee for the Conservation of
British Invertebrates (JCCBI) has published a set of guidelines on site
surveys, which are printed in this issue of ICN. The guidelines were
prepared by Steve Brooks of the Natural History Museum following a
proposal by David Lonsdale (AES).

News, Views and General Information

Martin Harvey, the AES Habitat Conservation Officer, reports that four
Areas Conservation representatives have joined the scheme since the
previous list of names was prepared for ICN 16 (February 1995). The
new reps are: |

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEWS, VOL. 17 (3)

Roger Kemp, Kemp's Farm Chapel Road, Ford, Aylesbury,
Buckinghamshire HP17 8XG.
Tel: (01298) 748932.

Tim Lavery, Farns, Castlemaine, Co. Kerry, Eire.

Tony Steele, 97 Benares Road, Plumstead, London SE18 1HU.
Tel: (0181) 854 0910.

Roger Sutton, 16 Ashford Road, Wellington, Somerset TA21 8QF.
Tel: (01823) 663510.

It is hoped that the area representation scheme will help local

- conservation bodies, land managers and planners in their awareness of

invertebrates and their habitats. In many cases involving changes in land
use, invertebrates are still being overlooked. Another aid to overcoming
this problem has been the publication of the JCCBI guidelines for site
surveys which are reproduced in this issue.

The AES Scheme is still its teething stages, and Martin Harvey is now
preparing an information pack, which should help the area reps to
develop their role in liaising with local organisations and in gaining access
to information. Martin is meanwhile keeping in touch with the reps via a
newsletter, and he also hopes to hold a meeting for them at the Society's
Annual Exhibition at Kempton Park in October. In the next issue of ICN,
we will be publishing some ideas and experiences from the area reps.

The addresses of the five other area reps can be found in ICN 16 and
can also be obtained from Martin Harvey at the following new address:
10 Kiln Ride, Upper Basildon, Berkshire RG8 8TA. Tel: (01481) 671889
(Home) or (01635) 550380 (Work).

Quinquennial review of the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act

In ICN No. 16, we invited readers' views on the proposal from Butterfly
Conservation that all British Red Data Book and “Notable” butterfly
species should be added to Schedule 9 of the Act, thus making it illegal to
release specimens of them into the wild without licences. A few letters
have been received, and the writers' views will be taken into account
when the matter is discussed further by the AES Conservation Committee
and by the JCCBI. There is still some time to send in comments; anyone
who is concerned either way about the outcome of this proposal ought to
write. The ICN Editor would particularly welcome information from
readers who would be prepared to answer the following questions:

(4) JUNE 1995

Did you know that there is a JCCBI code of conduct for the re-
introduction of species to sites?

Did you know that there is a form for reporting re-introductions?

Have you released artificially-bred insects into the wild following
publication of the code, in which case have you always complied with
the code, and if not, why not?

What is your reaction to the idea of introducing a legally enforceable
licensing system for the artificial release of listed species? ‘

As far as protection against collecting of “Schedule 5” species is
concerned, it was mentioned in ICN 16 that proposals for amending the
Schedule by adding or deleting species will be published later this year. It
might seem simplest to wait until then before inviting comments, but
earlier comments would be helpful in view of ICN's publication lag of
about two months. To this end, we now invite comments from any reader
who anticipates the listing or de-listing of a species that he/she would wish
to support or oppose.

STOP PRESS

While ICN 17 was in press, we received several more comments on the
proposal to control the release of certain butterfly species and perhaps
other insects, by law. Amongst those who have responded are members
of the Somerset Butterfly Group, whose members are drawn from various
organisations, including Butterfly Conservation, the Somerset Wildlife
Trust and the Exmoor Natural History Society. Some details of their work
and views on specific points in the proposals, provided by Mr Tony
‘Liebert, will be published in ICN 18. Suffice it to say for the present that
they are involved in the establishment of nature reserves, and that they
regard the re-introduction of species as an important part of their work,
where this is agreed appropriate through proper consultation as laid —
down in the relevant JCCBI code. Nine group members attending a field
meeting in May have signed the following statement:

We, the undersigned, as far as we are informed, consider the
proposed legislation concerning releases of butterflies superfluous,
unworkable and damaging to civil liberties.

Mr Roger Sutton, who sent in the signatures from Somerset, comments
that many of the sites where surreptitious releases may be causing
problems are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). For most such
sites, there are already lists of “potentially damaging-operations” which,

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VOL. 17 (5)

as a standard procedure, includg .. . “The release into the site of any
wild, feral or domestic mammal, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish or
invertebrate, or any plant or seed”. The site owner must obtain
permission from the national conservation agency (English Nature,
Scottish Natural Heritage or Countryside Council for Wales) before any
such releases are allowed. Mr Sutton points out that this control could,
therefore, already be invoked for unauthorised releases in many cases.

Future Meeting

Saturday, 12th August, 1995
New Forest, Hampshire (meet at 11.00 and 19.30 hours in car park
by woodland through Furzey Lodge, arid ref. SU 366 027).

This field meeting is being held by the British Entomological and Natural
History Society on behalf of the JCCBI, and so conservation will be a
major interest. Although some aspects of the meeting relate to moths (e.g.
demonstration of an infra-red “non-disturbance” illumination system by
the Nature Conservation Bureau Ltd.), the meeting will be of general
interest.

(Contact: Paul Waring, Tel: 01733 571917).

Special Feature: Survey Guidelines

As mentioned in our editorial, we are reproducing in full these guidelines,
which were prepared by Steve Brooks with the help of his colleagues on
the Executive sub-committee of the Joint Committee for the Conservation
of British Invertebrates. (Please note that, in places where “biotope” was
technically the most appropriate word, the word “habitat” has been used
for ease of understanding by non-scientists.)

JCCBI guidelines for invertebrate site surveys

Prepared by S.J. Brooks, Biodiversity Division, Dept. of Entomology, The Natural History
Museum, London SW7 5BD.

Introduction

With the rise of public interest in the conservation of invertebrates and the
value of invertebrates as environmental indicators, environmental
surveyors are increasingly being asked to conduct surveys and prepare
survey reports that include invertebrates in their considerations. This may
be to monitor the fluctuations of invertebrate populations in response to

(6) JUNE 1995

changes in management regimes, to assess the likely impact of a
proposed development or to establish the conservation value of a site.
The results of these surveys may be used to develop conservation
strategies or be presented at a public enquiry and tip the balance for or
against a development proposal. However, the quality of surveys is
variable, some being more thorough than others, and conclusions may be
drawn from inadequate evidence or based on inaccurate species
identification. Quality assurance in survey work is now being demanded.
These guidelines have been prepared on behalf of the JCCBI in an
attempt to set standards for invertebrate surveys. The guidelines are
particularly designed for whole site surveys, rather than for a brief
reconnaissance visit to a site. We intend that the quidelines provide a
resumé of what ideally should be covered in an invertebrate survey.

We considered it outside the scope of the guidelines to make
recommendations on:

i. what target groups are most suitable for particular habitats

ii. what are the most appropriate methods for sampling a particular
group of invertebrates

iii. how to recognise particular habitats
iv. statistical analysis of data.
These points are dealt with more fully in some of the references provided.

How to use the guidelines

The survey guidelines present a checklist that a would-be surveyor should
consider before embarking on an invertebrate survey. They give a
framework for a theoretically ideal survey. For some surveys, adherence
to all the recommendations set out below may be impracticable in terms
of both time available and expense, or unnecessary in order to fulfil the
aims of the survey. However. a survey that does not include all these
points may still provide valuable data. For example, the discovery of a
Red Data Book species (Shirt, 1987; Bratton, 1991), even after a cursory
visit, indicates the potential importance of a site even though it may not
have been possible to ascertain the size of the population, its distribution
on the site, or whether a breeding population is present. A follow-up
survey focused on obtaining more information on such a species may
then be appropriate. What is important is for the surveyor to recognise
any limitations in the survey methodology adopted and how this may
affect the data. The surveyor should explain in the survey report the
reasons why some of the recommendations could not be carried out in
the survey and how this is likely to affect the interpretation of the results.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 17 (7)

Need for surveying target groups

To attempt to make a comprehensive list of all the invertebrates present
at a given site is impracticable. Thus, it is essential that the groups of
species chosen as indicators of the quality of a site convey as much
information as possible about the habitats present and complement the
data obtainable from other organisms.

Choice of target groups

1. Taken together, the target groups should have the potential to
inhabit all the habitats to be surveyed within the survey area.

2. The national, and preferably, the local distribution of species in the
target group should be known so that meaningful statements can be
made about how common or how rare are the species.

3. The biologies of the target species should be sufficiently well known
that meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the quality of the
habitats surveyed.

4. The target groups should include species that have reasonably
exacting habitat requirements. The presence or absence of such a
species can thus be related to a specific attribute of the survey area.

5. The surveyor must be able to have the species in the target groups
accurately identified and should consult acknowledged taxonomic
experts for verification of critical species.

6. Ideally, the target group should be amenable to standard sampling
procedures so as to maximise representation in samples.

Survey methods

Aim of survey. The aim of the survey and the groups to be surveyed must
be established from the beginning since this is certain to affect
methodology. For example, the survey may be a monitoring programme;
simply to establish presence of species; for an environmental impact
assessment, or for deciding on appropriate habitat management. The
over-riding consideration should be the efficient production of meaningful
results. What is the minimum amount of resources required to fulfil the
aims of the survey? The following recommendations are designed to
serve as a reminder of points to consider before embarking on a survey.

7. Sampling should coincide with the season (normally between April
and September for most insect orders), time of day or night, and
weather conditions in which the target species display their
maximum activity. There should be at least three sampling periods:
early, mid- and late-season.

10.

IDE.

WZ,

13;

14.

ES):

JUNE 1995

For a whole site survey, the full range of habitats of importance to
invertebrates in the survey area should be recognised (Evans, 1988;
Nature Conservancy Council, 1990; Fry & Lonsdale, 1991; Kirby,
1992). Those habitats that are considered important or vulnerable
should be sampled for the appropriate target group.

N.B. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Nature Conservancy Council 1990) was
developed to recognise plant communities and so may be inappropriate
in recognising habitats of importance to invertebrates. Habitats
supporting important invertebrate assemblages may be impoverished
botanically.

Where possible, it is useful to obtain evidence of breeding of target
species on or near the site. This may prove impracticable for many
invertebrate groups but can be safely assumed for many non-insect
groups. :

Voucher specimens (N.B. but not species listed under Schedule 5 of
the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981) and/or photographs should be
taken, especially of critical species, and made available for the
identification of many invertebrate species. Named specimens could
be deposited in a local museum, prior arrangements having been
made with the appropriate curator.

The JCCBI code of practice for collecting insects (JCCBi, 1987)
should be followed.

For Red Data Book species or certain key, easily identified, groups
an estimate of abundance of each species in each discrete habitat is
of benefit. This is particularly important for monitoring programmes —
being carried out in conjunction with habitat management so that the
effectiveness of the management can be assessed over a period of
years. Similarly, in surveys assessing the comparative importance of
different parts of a site, such information can be useful.

When monitoring a site or comparing sites, the sampling methods
should be standardised so that comparability over time and between
sites can be achieved. The sampling method chosen should be
robust and produce repeatable results (i.e. with low variance
between samples taken at the same time).

In monitoring programmes, the survey should be conducted
throughout the period that species of the target group are likely to be
present in their most easily surveyable life-stage.

If a population is to be monitored, regular surveys need to be made
to facilitate comparison over time. The frequency of visits will be
related to the period of occurrence of the life-stage being surveyed.

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 17 (9)

Rss,

ee

18.

nD:

20.

Zi.

The survey report should make clear the aims of the survey, what the
results can reasonably be expected to demonstrate and point out any
limitations in the survey methods.

The survey and collecting methods should be fully described and
justified so that the reliability of the results can be assessed.

The ways and means by which the species were identified should be
made clear (what keys were used; whether specimens were identified
in the field; who identified them etc.).

Nomenclature used should follow a modern standard and readily
accessible checklist which should be cited in the references.

Raw data should either be attached to the survey report in an
appendix or it should be made clear in the report where the raw data
are stored and how they can be accessed.

Local experts, landowners, funding agencies and others who assisted
in the survey work should be fully acknowledged in the report.

Additional recommendations

ZZ,

ZS,

24.

25.

26.

Di.
28.

The inclusion of a map in the survey report showing the location of
key species (such as Red Data Book species) in the survey area is
useful. These locations should, if possible, be related to physical and
vegetational characteristics (e.g. abundance and distribution of
foodplants (where relevant), management regimes, habitats
recognised). The map can also indicate sample sites, transects
walked etc.

Structural features of the survey area (e.g. vegetational; aspect;
shelter from wind) which may affect species distribution and
abundance can be discussed.

Any natural factors which may have affected the accuracy of the
survey can be noted (e.g. weather conditions, inaccessibility of part
of the site, recent storm damage etc.).

The possible influence of habitats and land usages in sites adjacent to
the survey area can be discussed.

The implications of any differences in the abundance of species

across the survey area or any changes in abundance with time can

be noted.
What is taken to constitute breeding evidence should be stated.

A review of historical records relating to the site from the literature
and from the local and national biological records centres,

(10) JUNE 1995

conservation agencies and the JNCC Invertebrate Site Register can
be useful. However, some records may be unreliable and such data
should not be used uncritically.

Legal considerations

Access. Before entering a survey site, permission should be obtained from
the landowners and/or tenants. The contractor should make it clear to the
surveyor from whom permission for access should be sought. If the
granting of permission specifies approved entry points or zones of access
within the site, these should be ascertained.

Liability of surveyor. The surveyor should ensure that the landowner's
property is not damaged during a site visit or that survey equipment is not
left on the site in such a way that it may pose a hazard to other people or
livestock.

Safety. Reference should be made to safety guidelines (e.g. BSBI, NERC,
Institute of Biology).

Ownership and distribution of data. Before the survey has begun, the
surveyor should establish who will own the data gathered and what
restrictions will be placed on distribution of the data.

If possible, agreement should be made that all species data should be
forwarded to the appropriate National recorder, the local or national
Biological Records Centre and the JNCC Invertebrate Site Register. It is
useful to agree a time limit on any restrictions on access to the data so
that ultimately it becomes freely available.

If possible, copies of the survey report should be deposited at the local
offices of the national conservation agency (Countryside Council for
Wales, English Nature or Scottish Natural Heritage) or local biological
records centre — preferably both.

Acknowledgements

These guidelines could not have been completed without the useful
comments and criticism of colleagues on JCCBI and, in particular, the
following for their detailed comments: Dr Keith Alexander (National Trust,
Cirencester, UK), Dr Stuart Ball (Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
Peterborough, UK), Dr Henry Disney (Cambridge University, UK), Dr
Martin Drake (English Nature, Peterborough, UK), Dr Brian Eversham
(Biological Records Centre, Monks Wood, UK), Dr Adrian Fowles
(Countryside Commission for Wales, Bangor, UK), Mr Peter Hammond

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEWS, VOL. 17 (11)

(The Natural History Museum, London, UK), Dr Roger Key (English
Nature, Peterborough, UK), Dr David Lonsdale (Amateur Entomologists'
Society, Alton, UK), Mr Howard Mendel (Ipswich Museum, UK), Dr
Norman Moore (Cambridge, UK), Dr Tim New (La Trobe University,
Victoria, Australia), Dr David Sheppard (English Nature, Peterborough,
UK), Dr Martin Speight (National Parks & Wildlife Service, Dublin, Eire)
and Dr Michael Usher (Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, UK).

REFERENCES

Bratton, J.H. [ed.] (1991). British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebrates other than insects. _
Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.

Brooks, S.J. (1993). A review of a method to monitor adult dragonfly populations. Journal
of the British Dragonfly Society 9: 1-4.

Disney, R.H.L., Erzinclioglu, Y.Z., Henshaw, D.J. de C., Howse, D., Unwin, D.M., Withers,
P. & Woods, A. (1982). Collecting methods and the adequacy of attempted fauna
surveys, with reference to Diptera. Field Studies 5, 607-621.

Evans, C. (1988). Habitat classification manual. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
Sandy, Bedfordshire.

Fry, R. & Lonsdale, D. (1991). Habitat Conservation for insects — a neglected green issue.
Amateur Entomologists' Society.

Goldsmith, F.B. [ed.] (1991). Monitoring for conservation and ecology. Chapman & Hall,
London.

Institute of Environmental Assessment (in prep.). Guidelines to the ecological input to
environmental assessments in the UK. Institute of Environmental Assessment.

ISO 7828. (1985). Water quality — methods of biological sampling; guidance on handnet
sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates. International Standards Organisation.

JCCBI (1987) [revised edition]. A code for insect collecting. Forestry Commission/Joint
Committee for the Conservation of British Insects.

Kirby, P. (1992). Habitat management for invertebrates: A practical handbook. Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds.

Luff, M.L. [ed.] (1987). The use of invertebrates in site assessment for conservation.
Agricultural Research Group, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Moore, N.W. & Corbet, P.S. (1990). Guidelines for monitoring dragonfly populations.

Journal of the British Dragonfly Society 6: 21-23.

Nature Conservancy Council (1990). Handbook for phase 1 habitat survey. A technique for
environmental audit. Peterborough.

Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies.
Biological Conservation 12: 115-134.

Shirt, D.B. (1987). British Red Data Books: 2 Insects. Nature Conservancy Council,
Peterborough.

Southwood, T.R.E. (1978). Ecological methods. [2nd edn.] Chapman & Hall, London.

Speight, M.C.D. (1986). Criteria for the selection of insects to be used as bio-indicators in

nature conservation research. Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress of Entomology,
pp. 485-488.

(12) JUNE 1995

Publication Review

New life for old woods (1994) the Land Rover Woodlands Campaign run
by Butterfly Conservation; information pack from the Conservation
Office, Butterfly Conservation, P.O. Box 444, Wareham, Bournemouth,
Dorset BH20 5YA, £3.95 incl. p&p.

This information pack, despite its rather wide-ranging title, deals
principally with butterflies and macro-moths. There are two leaflets on
woodland management, one for moths and one for butterflies, together
with a guide to butterfly species in British woodlands. The remainder of
the pack consists of single-sheet guides to fifteen individual butterfly
species.

The leaflet on management for moths brings out some very important
points which might be forgotten when butterflies are the main interest.

For example, it mentions the need to protect and enhance a wider range
of habitats than butterflies alone require, and it also makes it very clear
that coppicing or re-coppicing to create open habitats should be
carriedout only when certain criteria can be satisfied. As in other
publications, like the AES book on insect conservation, there is
information on the value of different stages in the coppice cycle and on
the need for a varied woodland ride structure. Although the importance
of other invertebrates is mentioned, there is not very much guidance on
invertebrate habitat requirements which might be neglected or harmed by
focusing just on macro-Lepidoptera. For example, bare ground is not
shown on the picture which illustrates the “ideal” woodland ride profile.
Incidentally, this piece of artwork looks good in colour, as shown in the
companion leaflet on butterflies, but has a strange (almost aquatic)
appearance in the monochrome version that appears in the moth leaflet.

The management leaflet on butterflies independently mentions some of
the general points made in the moth leaflet (e.g. about coppicing), and
contains much useful advice on rotational management and the
maintenance of habitat mosaics which, if implemented, will undoubtedly
benefit various invertebrates as well as butterflies. Indeed, there is some
mention of the habitat requirements of invertebrates such as those
depending on deadwood or ponds, which would not benefit from
management directed solely towards butterfly conservation. The
accompanying guide to butterfly species provides a very useful and
concise summary which will aid both identification and habitat
recognition. It also includes colour photos of sixteen species, shown in

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VOL. 17 (13)

their natural resting positions. The fifteen individual species sheets give
more detailed information, which includes an assessment of the current
status of these species in the British Isles, together with a distribution map
in each case. These sheets all follow the same well laid-out format.

Overall, this is an attractive publication which guides the reader to
other sources of information on the management of invertebrate habitats.
The leaflets are well thought-out in themselves, but there are problems -
inherent in focusing on single taxonomic groups such as the macro-
Lepidoptera whose habitat requirements are restricted, compared with
the full range of plant and animal groups which should be taken into
account by managers. These problems are overcome only to a certain
extent by mentioning the need to manage woodlands not just for
Lepidoptera, and by guiding the reader to other more broadly based
information sources.

Sites and Species of Interest

Key wildlife sites in Gloucestershire

Those of us who have a special interest in invertebrates are particularly
aware that habitats need to be protected widely in the countryside; not
just in nature reserves and in other specially protected sites. It is,
therefore, very heartening to see that the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust
now has a system for identifying and listing other sites whose protection
and appropriate management is especially important. Some of these sites,
of which nearly 1000 are already listed for Gloucestershire, already have
designations such as “Sites of Nature Conservation importance”, while
others can be added if they meet certain criteria include, for example, the
presence of “Nationally Notable” or “Red Data Book” species. In the case
of molluscs, any site supporting one or more of the 39 notable species for
the county can be included. By maintaining the register of sites the Trust
can make an informed response when it is consulted by the planning
authorities.

CONTENTS
Editorial’ x 2.085 Abed ees Rae ee ag ee Ue LU he i rtd IR a (1)

News:Viewsrand'General information: ....s4 ratte cee eee te ee (2)
Quinquennial Review of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Euture Meeting ccs Sas etn atcchol or oo ee ee (5)
Spécial Feature: Survey Guidelines 2 one a es en ee ee (5)
Publication Review... EN Syed Pasa ENE epee We S (12)
Sites-and:Speciesvok Interestae 5.5 Sc 5h eee ee ec (13)

NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this Journal
are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants offered or
sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the Officers and
Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss, embarrassment or injury that
might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1995. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.

(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 20th June 1995 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from 4 Steep Close, Orpington, Kent BR6 6DS.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

1 ECCS TE PES ee

ese

1 + aaa USE UM
' October 1995

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION

ISSN 1356 1359

Ay /® A publication of
/ The Amateur Entomologists' Society General Editor David Lonsdale

The Amateur Entomologists' Society

Founded in 1935

ICN Editor: | David Lonsdale

33 King's Road, Alton, Hampshire GU34 1PX.

AES Habitat Conservation Officer: | Martin Harvey

10 Kiln Ride, Upper Basildon,
Berkshire RG8 8TA.

AES Conservation Committee

Reg Fry

Colin Hart

Owen Lewis

David Lonsdale
Darren Mann
Stephen Miles

Martin Harvey

The Hawthorns, Frating Road, Great Bromley,
Colchester, Essex CO7 7JN.

Fourpenny Cottage, Dungates Lane, Buckland,
Betchworth, Syrrey RH3 7BD.

Department of Pure & Applied Biology,
The University of Leeds, Leeds Ls2 9JT.

Address as above.
104 Albert Street, Canton, Cardiff CF1 8JP.
469 Staines Road West, Ashford, Middlesex TW15 2AB.

Address as above.

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Illustrations by Mike Hill.

NOTICE

It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this Journal
are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants offered or
sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the Officers and
Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss, embarrassment or injury that
might be sustained by reliance thereon.

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION
NEWS

No. 18, October, 1995

Editorial

The last three issues of ICN inevitably contained a lot of general
information that had accumulated during the long delay following ICN
14. This did not leave much space for news of invertebrate conservation
“on the ground”, and we had hoped to remedy this in ICN 18. However,
quite a lot of space must now be devoted to a couple of important
documents that have been produced by Britain's central agency for
conservation, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The first of these
documents is the provisional list of “Special Areas of Conservation”
proposed under a European Community scheme for maintaining
biodiversity. Alan Stubbs has written a useful commentary on this; he
seems to have been almost alone in being in a position to comment on
the list from an invertebrate conservation point of view. The second
document contains draft amendments to the list of invertebrates that are
protected by law in Britain. These amendments have been proposed
under the quinquennial review of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981):
see ICN 16 and 17.

With all this legalistic information taking up our pages, it is worth asking
to what extent the law can help the conservation of invertebrates and
their habitats. As far as habitats are concerned, it must be a “good thing”
for wildlife that certain sites have legal protection against damaging
activities. The network of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) in the
UK perhaps represents one of the best systems of habitat protection in
western Europe, and yet many SSSlIs are being sacrificed to road
schemes and other developments. In any case, as pointed out in ICN 17,

(2) OCTOBER 1995

SSSIs and nature reserves are far from sufficient on their own to assure
the survival of a great many relatively immobile species. The need is for
policies — preferably not involving penal law — which can encourage
conservation in the wider countryside.

The contribution that anti-collecting laws can make directly to
invertebrate conservation can at best be very minor compared with the
prevention of habitat destruction, since collecting is very much the lesser
threat to most species. Nevertheless, we seem to expend a dis-
proportionate amount of time and effort arguing about such laws! Any
law that criminalises collecting can be regarded as an infringement of a
basic freedom, but it is a freedom that most field naturalists would not
wish to abuse anyway. They can therefore live with such restrictions,
provided that this form of species protection is applied very selectively
and with proper consultation beforehand. However, they sometimes ask
whether there has been any resulting benefit for the species concerned.
Unfortunately, it is not usually possible to answer this question
objectively, since there is usually no opportunity to set up properly
replicated experiments. Thus, even if a protected species were to show a
massive recovery, it might be impossible to find whether the prohibition
of collecting had played a significant part.

Although the direct efforts of species protection laws are hard to assess,
their influence on human attitudes can be observed without recourse to
scientific procedures. A positive effect is that species protection draws
attention to the plight of the target species, and thus helps to attract
funding for research. A much less desirable effect is that the
criminalisation of collecting, however selective it may be, tends to draw
suspicion upon all forms of fieldwork that involve collecting. It is not in
the interests of conservation if the activities of field naturalists are deterred
through fear of irrational accusation or condemnation.

EBC®

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEWS, VOL. 18 (3)

News Views and General Information

Proposals for legal controls on butterfly releases in Britain

ICN 16 carried an item about a proposal from Butterfly Conservation,
that all British Red Data Book and Nationally Notable butterflies should
be added to Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act under the
current quinquennial review. This would make it an offence to release
specimens into the wild. We have not yet seen an official draft of
proposals that have been accepted for Schedule 9, although we have
received the proposals for Schedule 5 and 8 (see “Sites and Species of
Interest’).

Following a further request in ICN 17 for readers' comments, several
more have been received, although the proportion of readers who have
written remains small. It would be good to have a wider response on
which to base the policies of the AES and of other societies. However,
even the most emotive matters of public debate seem to involve only a

- small minority of those who have opinions. Perhaps most of us simply

lack the time to write letters in a busy life, or perhaps we feel that views
similar to our own are getting a good airing. Anyway, the silence of the
majority does not seem to detract much from the power of the arguments
expressed, as is evident from the great debate over the privatised water
companies in England and Wales in this drought year of 1995. As far as
the release of native British butterflies is concerned, it now seems time to
reveal that the views sent by readers have been virtually all against the
proposal for legal control. No reader has actually supported the idea, but
one letter did suggest that criminalisation might be welcomed as a sort of
challenge by those who are intent upon confusing people by releasing
species surreptitiously.

Welsh Invertebrate Review

The Countryside Council for Wales has recently published a review for
1993, in which the results of its invertebrate surveys are reported. The
sites surveyed included the South Camarthenshire Fens and Cors Fochno
where the population of the Large heath butterfly, Coenonympha tullia,
was studied. Information is available from Mr A.P. Fowles, Countryside
Council for Wales, Plas Penrhos, Ffordd Penrhos, Bangor, Gwynedd
Ul Dsy)/ ACO) |

(4) OCTOBER 1995

AES Area Conservation Representatives in the British Isles

ICN 17 carried a short item about our new Area reps and also promised
that No. 18 would include some ideas and experiences from them. These
will now have to appear in ICN 19, for which we apologise. In the
meantime, Geoff Trevis of Worcestershire reports that he is involved in
setting up a quality-controlled database for wildlife sites in the county. He
also mentions that this year's annual conservation conference of the
Worcestershire Wildlife Trust will be devoted to management for
invertebrates.

Natura 2000 Sites (Special Areas of Conservation) in the
UK

A commentary by Alan Stubbs.

Under the European Community Habitats Directive which was adopted
by member states in 1992, each government is to establish a number of
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). This represents an attempt by the
EC to define those sites in Europe which are of international importance
and to give them priority for conservation. As such, the establishment of
SACs forms part of the action following the Rio Conference whereby
many nations are supposed to be placing the conservation of biodiversity
and sustainability high on their agendas. Governments will be obliged to
protect their SACs and to take active steps to maintain their biodiversity,
including the full protection of certain associated plant and animal
species. The UK is fortunate in this respect, since it has had a government
wildlife agency (now split into four within Great Britain) since 1949, and
also has the world's strongest and most knowledgeable voluntary
conservation movement. We are already committed to international
undertakings such as the Ramsar convention on wetlands, so that the
concept of SACs should be a challenge easily met. However, as in the
world of Alice in Wonderland, nothing is as straightforward as it seems.

When, on 3lst March 1995, the official list of SACs proposed for the
UK was published by the Department of the Environment (DoE), this was
done quietly and was long overdue. A copy was sent to Butterfly
Conservation and a few short press reports appeared, but it seems that
the entomological world was otherwise kept in the dark. Only six weeks
were allowed for the receipt of comments, and there had been no
previous chance to prepare possible comments, since no-one outside the
official agencies had been permitted to hear so much as a hint at the
choice of sites. It seemed that staff were under pain worse than death to

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 18 (5)

let anything out of the bag. Even when the list appeared, it was like gold
dust, and I suspect that I was one of the very few entomologists in a
position to tweak out a copy, together with two other documents which
were necessary to identify the individual sites listed. Without these other
documents, many of the 280 listed names are difficult to interpret; for
instance, which sites are embraced in “Norfolk Valley Fens”? The time
taken to decipher such names helped to eat up the consultation period
but — yes — the main Norfolk pingo sites were included. Eventually, the list
was published in British Wildlife 6(5), 286-296, June 1995. By then, the
“consultation” period was over, and the deadline had been reached for
the Government to submit the list to Brussels.

Despite the problems over consultation, the official agencies made a
commendable effort to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. Although a ceiling
of 300 sites was set by the DoE, the 280 listed names include clusters of
sites, giving a total of over 800 individual localities. However, the
selection was biased, since it had to represent habitats which are
recognised in the European Habitats Directive, which in turn is based on
a vegetation classification known as CORINE which was devised for a
completely different purpose and which was relevant only to certain
regions of Europe. An alternative qualification for a site is that it should
contain species which happen to have been listed internationally; mainly
those which are categorised as globally threatened. This is all very well for
birds, but the invertebrates on these lists are a small and motley

collection. Examples of species that were used in a more sensible way to

select SACs are the damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale and the Marsh
Fritillary butterfly Eurodryas aurinia. Although the agencies did their best
to stretch these habitat and species criteria, the resulting list omits some
types of site that seem crucial for maintaining biodiversity in the UK. I
made quite a long submission, listing sites that I felt deserved listing in
spite of the criteria, together with some that should have qualified
anyway. The following list gives a few examples of these.

The North Yorks Moors calcareous springs and seepages (a “priority”
European Habitat).

The Hampshire chalk stream valley fens (CORINE problem).

Serious omissions on the coast, including sites on the Isle of Wight,
Yorkshire and South Devon.

Syon Park (River Thames), tidal flood meadow and carr (surely a
rare habitat in Europe these days).

(6) OCTOBER 1995

Redefinition of Thursley to embrace a much wider ecological
representation of “Surrey Sands” (CORINE might not allow this).

Inclusion of “levels” habitat (not included in CORINE).

Pembrokeshire/Dyfed wetlands need greater representation as an
ecological site (CORINE problem).

River selection, yet to be published but known options seem to be
based on aquatic plants and a few animal species; needs to
include the Monnow and the Spey.

In view of the problems in classifying sites and the resulting inadequate
representation of habitats — and these are problems that the agencies well
recognise — I made some further suggestions. | asked that important sites
that would have qualified under a more comprehensive classification
should in effect be given equal status to SACs. I also asked that all
proposals arising from public consultation should be made public by
being accessible at agency libraries; this would be some safeguard against
any tendency for important proposals to be swept under the carpet.

Four months after my submission, English Nature and the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee (JNCC) have not yet responded to my
submission and I have had only an acknowledgement from Scottish
Natural Heritage. The response from the Countryside Council for Wales
confirms my worst fears about site classification. For example they
confirm that “levels” habitat does not qualify. | proposed inclusion of the
ditch systems, where much of the entomological interest of “levels”
resides. Ditches could be classified as “open water”, since a blind canal
qualifies for this category. Even so, the Gwent Levels, presumably
together with the Somerset Levels, Pevensey Levels, North Kent Marshes
etc, are disqualified. For the Pembrokeshire and Dyfed wetlands, which
deserve to be represented by an SAC containing a cluster of sites, only a
few very tightly selected sites qualify according to CORINE classification
or by containing species on the “right” list. As for the River Monnow, it is
ineligible because it does not fit the CORINE river vegetation
classification. We have yet to learn whether exclusions like these can be
overcome by acceptance of the idea that, de facto, important non-
qualifying sites should get equal treatment with SACs.

Another problem in site selection was that some sites of major
importance were excluded apparently because they were not already
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Many have not been notified as

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 18 (7)

SSSIs simply because they are in a backlog. We don't yet know how the
agencies will respond to suggestions for non-SSSI sites to be included. In
any case, it looks as though a two-tier SSSI system will become
entrenched. The press carried an observation from Friends of the Earth
that, when so many SSSIs were threatened by road schemes, it was odd
that only one of these had been proposed as a SAC. Should one smell a
rat over the selection process? The first question at any public enquiry will
in future be... “Is this a SAC?” The planning process, not to mention
ministerial decisions, may well treat a non-SAC SSSI as second-rate. This
scenario must be firmly resisted.

Even the existing official list is only a proposed one, and so could be
pruned drastically by DoE or Brussels. However, DoE must have known
what was coming, and we can therefore hope that it will be inclined to
accept much of the list. Once the list has been finalised, we will have to
see how much commitment there will be in resources for safeguarding
and preventing the decline of both SACs and ordinary SSSIls.

Why does any of this matter? The first reason is that anything that can
be done to enhance the government's commitment to prevent damage to
these sites must be welcome. Secondly, the scheme makes it more likely
that positive management to prevent decline of habitat quality will be
specified. (A fault of the SSSI legislation is that it defines damaging
operations but has no mechanism for defining positive measures,
although there is some finance for management schemes agreed with
owners.)

Finally, what should entomologists in the UK be doing? Here are some
suggestions.

Keep the Invertebrate Site Register (run by JNCC) up-to-date with
important information, since this is the basis of so many decisions
within the agencies. If you have a direct contact via one of the
agency entomologists, that is an alternative route.

Feed in views on sites which should be considered as SACs, or
indeed as SSSIs.

Take part in, or feed into, the various county Biodiversity Challenge
fora that are addressing targets for conservation. Your county
wildlife trust should know where things stand.

No panic yet, but be prepared to write to MPs and MEPs if their
commitment is looking inadequate.

(8) OCTOBER 1995

Sites and Species of Interest
A gall wasp newly recorded in Britain

An article in the Ministry of Defence conservation magazine “Sanctuary”
(No. 24, 1995), reports the discovery of a cynipid gall wasp new to the
British list. This is Aulacidea follioti, which had previously been known
only from France, where it was first described in the 1970s. The find
resulted from an invertebrate survey conducted on MoD land by staff of
the Colchester Museum in Essex. The host-plant was the Prickly sow-
thistle, Sonchus asper, growing along the sea walls at Fingringhoe
Ranges, which are less intensively managed than elsewhere on the north-
east Essex coastline. This seems to allow the larval galls to develop,
whereas they would be destroyed by cutting or grazing. The wasp seems
to be well established at Fingringhoe, but it is not known whether it
occurs elsewhere. Jerry Bowdrey, Assistant Curator of Natural History at
Colchester, would like to hear from anyone who has found galls on
Prickly sow-thistle. His address is: The Museum Resource Centre, 14
Rygate Road, Colchester, Essex CO1 1YG.

Requests for sighting of species

Among the many British invertebrates that are either endangered or
suspected to be in decline, there are several (apart from butterflies) that
can be easily spotted and identified by non-specialists. Surveys of these
are now being conducted, and records of sightings are requested. Some
of these species and the relevant contact addresses are as follows:

Stag beetle, Lucanus cervus, address: George Barker, Environmental
Impacts Team, English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough
PERNA

Mole cricket, Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (protected species), address
(information and photo-sheet available): David Veevers or Dr Ed
Jarzembowski, Maidstone Museum and Art Gallery, St. Faith's
Street, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1LH (Tel. 01622 754497).

Glow-worm, Lampyris noctiluca, address: write c/o ICN editor, 33
Kings Road, Alton, Hampshire GU34 1PX.

English Nature species recovery programme

English Nature's latest progress report states that recovery work has been
concluded on the Field cricket, Gryllus campestris and the Fen raft spider,
Dolomedes plantarius. It is also intended to conclude or reduce recovery

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION News, VOL. 18 (9)

work on the Reddish buff moth, Ascometia caliginosa, and the Wart-biter
cricket, Decticus verrucivora, The Large blue butterfly, Maculinea arion,
has been re-introduced to a fifth site. New projects are planned for the
black-veined moth, Siona lineata and the Sussex emerald moth, Thalera
fimbrialis.

Review of species legally protected in Britain

The third quinquennial review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)
is well under way, and we received a copy of the proposed changes to
Schedules 5 and 8 in late July. Schedule 5 lists invertebrates and certain
vertebrates that are protected under the Act, while Schedule 8 deals with
plants and fungi. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee invited
comments up to the end of September, with a view to printing the second
draft in December. This issue of ICN is not due to appear until October
and, in anticipation of this time-lag problem, we invited readers to send in
comments about any species already on Schedule 5 or which might be
candidates for addition. We did not of course know the proposals that
were being made, but we can now list these. Incidentally, we received no
comments from readers.

The proposed amendments involve the terrestrial and freshwater
invertebrates listed below. (After the name of each species, the identity of
the proposer is shown as an abbreviation in brackets as follows: JNCCSU
= Joint Nature Conservation Committee Support Unit; EN = English
Nature; BC = Butterfly Conservation; SNH = Scottish Natural Heritage;
QRWG = Quinquennial Review Working Group.)

Agrochola haematidea, Southern chestnut moth (JNCCSU). In early 1990
this mainly Mediterranean species was discovered feeding on cross-leaved
heath (Erica tetralix) at a heathland in Sussex, southern England; far
north of its nearest known site in France. It is alleged that this one site has
been heavily targeted by collectors, and so the proposal is that the species
should be added to Schedule 5 for full protection.

Bembecia chrysidiformis, Fiery clearwing moth (JNCCSU). This moth
occurs mainly in central and southern Europe. In the last 30 years, it has
been reported from only one British locality on the coast of Kent,
although there are earlier records scattered across southern coastal
counties and in the Forest of Dean. It is considered to be at risk from
collecting, which involves uprooting the foodplant (species of dock and
sorrel, Rumex spp.) and therefore affects the habitat. There are reports
that the areas within the site where the moth breeds have been denuded

(10) OcTOBER 1995

of docks. The proposal under the Act is for total protection. Enforcement
of this would make it effectively illegal to damage or uproot any docks or
sorrels that might contain larvae of the moth. Presumably, this would only
apply at the site where the moth is known to occur; the intention clearly
cannot be to outlaw the removal or spraying of docks or sorrels where
they occur as weeds in gardens or on farmland. However, it is technically
already illegal to uproot any plant species in Britain without the
permission of the landowner.

Coenagrion mercuriale, Southern damselfly (JNCCSU). In the UK, this
damselfly is confined to a few southern and south-western counties, and
occurs at only a few sites outside its main strongholds of Pembrokeshire
and the New Forest. It is found elsewhere in western and central Europe,
and is widespread in France, Spain and Portugal. It is not considered to
be at risk from collecting, although the larval habitat (slow-flowing runnels
and streams) is easily damaged through drainage, dredging and water
abstraction. Such damage is meant to be prevented under the EC
Habitats and Species Directive, which lists C. mercuriale in Annex II and
requires its maintenance “at a favourable conservation status”. However,
the recommendation is also for protection against collecting, possession
and sale, even though this species is clearly not sufficiently at risk to be
scheduled under the criteria normally applied by the British agencies. The
reason for this is that it is listed on Annex II of the Bern Convention,
under which contracting parties must adopt these rigorous measures.

Gortyna borelii, Fisher's estaurine moth (JNCCSU). This moth, which
feeds on hog's fennel, Peucedanum officinale, is a mainly Mediterranean-
Asiatic species which is extremely local in western Europe and has been
recorded only at six localities in the UK, all of them in the Hamford Water
Estuary, Essex. The main threat seems to be the mowing of the sea walls
where the foodplant, itself a Red Data List species, grows. However, as
with the Fiery clearwing, collecting involves the uprooting of the
foodplant and is reportedly being carried out commercially. For these
reasons, the proposal is for full protection.

Lucanus cervus, Stag beetle (EN). As with many deadwood insects, the
habitat of the Stag beetle has been declining due to misguided tidying-up
and removal for firewood. These problems have probably affected its
populations throughout its range in continental Europe, as well as in
Britain where it is mainly confined to the south-east. Also, its large size
and fearsome appearance have made it a target for collection and sale. Its
status needs to be protected under the EC Habitats and Species Directive,

INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEws, VOL. 18 (11)

and there is also an obligation under Appendix III of the Bern Convention
to regulate its exploitation. The recommendation is for protection against
any activities involved in selling or offering for sale.

Eurodryas aurinia, Marsh fritillary butterfly (BC). This butterfly is
widespread in western and northern Britain, and also occurs in most
other European countries. However, it has suffered from habitat
destruction, due to the loss or “improvement” of the damp pastures
where its foodplant, Devils-bit scabious (Succisa pratensis) grows. This
has led to a severe decline in the number of sites where it occurs, with the
loss of many in the more easterly parts of the UK. Due to the often small
size of the insect's colonies and to the ease with which its larvae can be
collected, commercial collecting is perceived as a threat. For this reason,
E. aurinia was added to Schedule 5 in respect of sale of specimens only.
In Northern Ireland, it has full protection in Schedules 5 and 7 of the
Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order, 1985. By the standards applied to
other invertebrates on Schedule 5, full protection of E. aurinia in Great
Britain might not appear to be justified, despite its disappearance from
many sites. However, on a European scale, the western parts of the UK
are a stronghold for the species, and this creates something of an
international obligation. This could perhaps be met by habitat protection
as required by the EC Habitats and Species Directive and by the Bern
Convention, but there is also a legal commitment under the latter to
outlaw capture, keeping and killing. For these reasons, the proposal is for
full protection. This may be a matter of concern for the many
entomologists who have enjoyed keeping this butterfly in captivity.
However, under the current interpretation of the Act, there seems to be
no objection to the keeping of stocks that have been maintained by
captive breeding from sources acquired before the Act came into force.

Lycaena dispar, Large copper butterfly (EN). The population of this insect
in the UK is derived from an introduction in 1927 of its Dutch subspecies,
L. dispar batavus, following the extinction of the British form, L. dispar
dispar in 1851. It requires large areas of reed-fen containing its foodplant,
the Great water dock Rumex hydrolapathum, and the demise of the
British form resulted from drainage of such areas in East Anglia, allegedly
together with collection. It is doubtful whether the present population is
able to maintain itself, since it appears that the colony at the site of
introduction, Woodwalton Fen, might not have persisted without artificial
reinforcement, which took place until recently. It has not spread from this
site, but English Nature is considering the possibility of establishing

(12) OCTOBER 1995

another colony elsewhere in the wild. Outside the UK, L. dispar batavus is
now known only from one site in Friesland. Collection is perceived as a
threat, and there is also concern over the illegal release of a third
subspecies, rutilis, with which batavus might hybridise. For these reasons,
the proposal is for total protection, instead of the control of sale only. It is
also proposed that Schedule 5 should be amended to specify only L.
dispar batavus.

Margaratifera margaratifera, Pearl mussel (SNH). This bivalve mollusc,
which is a parasite on the gills of fish, is abundant in some rivers of the
north and west of Scotland and also occurs in south-west England,
Yorkshire, Cumbria and Wales. In Europe it occurs across several
countries from west to east. However, some of its British populations
seem to consist largely of old individuals, with little recruitment. It seems
to be in decline throughout its European range, perhaps due to pollution,
siltation and interference with the migration of its host fish species.
Globally, it is listed as “Vulnerable” by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature. Individuals take 12 to 15 years to mature and
live on average for 60 years. There is therefore concern about the risk
from collection, which is mainly carried out for pearls. The pearls can,
however, be removed without killing the mussel, and commercial
exploitation is therefore allowed. The Pearl mussel was added to
Schedule 5 in 1991, in respect only of killing and injuring, while allowing
“taking” (i.e. fishing). The problem is reportedly that killing and injuring is
still taking place, since there is virtually no chance of apprehending
offenders. The proposal is therefore to make the “taking” of Pearl mussels
illegal, while providing licences for a small number of legitimate pearl
fisherman who do not kill their catch.

Catinella arenaria, Sandbowl snail (JNCCSU). This gastropod mollusc
occurs at only two known sites in Britain, in Cumbria and in north Devon.
A former colony in Glamorgan is extinct. It has a sparse distribution across
Europe, where it has “Vulnerable” status. It has had full protection under
the Act from the start, even though collection has not been perceived as a
threat. Trampling by grazing animals or loss of bare ground due to
insufficient grazing are the main threats, although these extremes are
avoided through special management at the two known sites. As far as
protection against collection is concerned, this snail has been held up as an
example where the law is unworkable, since dissection is necessary to
distinguish it from another species, Succinea oblongata. It is now realised
that this could be counter-productive in that anyone who discovers that he

_ INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION NEWS, VOL. 17 (13)

or she has caught C. arenaria at a “new” site, would probably fail to report
it as a new record for fear of prosecution. The recommendation is for
- complete deletion from Schedule 5.

Hadena irregularis, Viper's bugloss moth (QRWG). This moth is now
considered extinct in Britain, where it formerly occurred only in the
Norfolk Brecklands, feeding on Spanish catchfly, Silene otitis. It occurs
rarely in France, Holland and Sweden. In 1989, a year after its addition
to Schedule 5 for full protection, a thorough survey failed to find the
moth. In 1994, the last possible site — an airbase that had been
inaccessible to surveyors — was found to be unsuitable. The demise of H.
irregularis was probably due to destruction of habitat due to agriculture,
forestry and building development. Even where S. otitis persisted, grazing
and mowing prevented formation of the seed capsules which are
necessary as the larval food source. The proposal is that the moth should
be removed from Schedule 5.

A specialised moth in Cornwall?

In ICN 16 there was an item about a specialised moth in Cornwall that
had been reported in the Ministry of Defence magazine, “Sanctuary”. The
moth concerned was the local pyralid, Apomyelois bistratiella neophanes,
which occurs in a fungus growing on burnt gorse bushes. The writer in
“Sanctuary” had suggested that the moth might be able to detect the
smell of burning gorse many miles distant, and so find its fungal host. The
puzzle was that he named the fungus as Daldinia concentrica, which is
usually found on ash and rarely on other hosts. This fungus is not, in any
case, associated with burnt wood. Three readers of ICN 16, Miss K.
Robinson of Baldock, Hertfordshire, Mr Brian Wurzell of North London
and Mr John Gregory of Par, Cornwall, have since pointed out that there
is a species of Daldinia which occurs on burnt gorse. This is D. vernicosa,
which has a considerably smaller fruiting body than D. concentrica. John
Gregory also confirms that the fungus is widespread in Cornwall, and
appears to be the normal host there for this moth.

CONTENTS
EGitovialecg BEG ok cashes cohen Coe csieae MAN OP LRG Ta Genet toe Se ae Oe ern Sea Ree (1)

News, Views and General information
Proposals for legal controls on butterfly releases in Britain ......................c:cceeees (3)
Welsh Invertebrates"Review> 0.2... eR Ss. oo eee (3)
AES Area Conservation Representatives in the British Isles ...........00...ccccceeeeeeeeee (4)
Natura 2000 Sites (Special Areas of Conservation) in the UK ...................ccceeeeeee (4)

Sites and Species of Interest

A-gall'wasp newly recorded:in: Britain: 27323.2.. ee oh (8)

Requests for sighting: Of Species 252. sas x eatet seas Bs (8)

Enalish. Nature‘species recovery programme. 2.-0%ececesse cee ee (8)

Review of species legally protected in Britain™............2.5: 2,25 42<.ciecceeteceeesespe eestor (9)

A specialised moth in Cornwall? >. ...0............2 .o¢4 hone Bie one caee Sn at ee ee (13)
NOTICE

It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this Journal
are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants offered or
sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the Officers and
Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss, embarrassment or injury that
might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1995. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 25th October 1995 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from 4 Steep Close, Orpington, Kent BR6 6DS.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

Number 19 February 1996

INVERTEBRATE
VATION

7: ee ISSN 1356 1359
‘© A publication of
Wil The Amateur Entomologists' Society General Editor David Lonsdale

Founded 1935
Where to write

For all JCN business, please write to:

AES
P.O. Box 8774
London
SW7 5ZG

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Reg Fry
Colin Hart
Owen Lewis
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann
Stephen Miles
Martin Harvey

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Illustrations by Mike Hill.

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION .
NEWS “TH. NATUR

No. 19, February 1996

Editorial

People who study insects and other invertebrates often work alone,
perhaps because they need to examine specimens minutely and at their
own pace. There are of course opportunities to share information and
interests, in the form of journals, exhibitions and meetings provided by
various societies. These fora can be very valuable in facilitating and
stimulating a wide range of activities, but they provide only limited
opportunities for discussing and promoting the conservation of the
invertebrate fauna. Perhaps the major exception to this is the Xerces
Society in the USA, which is dedicated to invertebrate conservation. We
iMmmpnc WIG ehave the British Dragonfly, Society and Butterfly
Conservation, which deal with particular insect groups, and the Joint
Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates CCBD, which
is an “umbrella” group.

Despite the lack of a society dedicated to the conservation of
invertebrates in general, field naturalists in Britain are devoting a lot of
their time to this cause. Many have become involved in schemes to
help pinpoint sites of special value for invertebrates. There are many
such schemes locally in the UK, as well as national ones like the
Invertebrate Site Register and the recording schemes of the Biological
Records Centre. Also, the increased mass popularity of wildlife
conservation has helped to enhance funding for the acquisition and
management of nature reserves and other protected sites, many of
which include important populations of invertebrate species.

Although invertebrate conservation is less of a “Cinderella” activity
than it used to be, much of the activity has been shaped either by
professional invertebrate specialists in government agencies, or by

pao
mn oN,

2 Invertebrate Conservation News a }

fund-raising organisations whose interests either embrace all forms of
wildlife or focus on certain taxa which represent a very small
proportion of biodiversity. In some cases, the balance of interests in
such organisations seems to have diverted attention away from habitat
requirements of invertebrates, while in other cases it seems to have
fostered an unsympathetic attitude towards field naturalists whose
studies require the collection of invertebrates.

One potentially very useful outlet for the ideas and opinions of
invertebrate naturalists will be a conference which has been organised
for 24th February on behalf of the JCCBI (see “Future Meetings”
section). This will provide opportunities for amateurs and professionals
to discuss issues which come under the general heading of .. . “what is
the best way ahead for invertebrate conservation?”. A theme throughout
the conference will be biodiversity, since the Biodiversity Action Plan
(see our news item below) is almost certainly going to shape much of
our conservation effort in future years.

News, Views and General Information

Guidelines on legislation for the conservation and protection of
invertebrates

As mentioned in earlier issues of ICN, the JCCBI has for some time
intended to produce a set of guidelines on the appropriate rdle of law
in the protection of wild invertebrates. The guidelines are based on
scientific principles and take proper account both of conservation
requirements and the personal liberty of field naturalists. We are
pleased to report that the guidelines have been approved in their final
form, and are being made available for publication in relevant journals.
By publishing this document, the JCCBI hopes to encourage an
informed attitude in all those who might seek to change laws or to
promote new ones in the UK or elsewhere. We intend to publish the
JCCBI guidelines in ICN 20.

COD

)
|
)

poaN
Py: {
:

ON :

AES Area Conservation Representatives:
an update (November 1995)

by Martin Harvey, AES Habitat Conservation Officer

As regular readers of JCN will know, over the last 18 months or so the
AES Conservation Committee has been working to build up our
network of local conservation representatives. These “Area Reps” are
AES members and keen conservationists who have volunteered to act
as contact points, passing information on local issues to the
Conservation Committee and promoting invertebrate conservation
locally. There are now eleven Area Reps, and already they are enabling
the AES to have a real involvement in conservation “on the ground”
(see “News from the Area Reps”, below). Some of the Reps intend to
organise local meetings in 1996, to enable interested parties to meet
and take further action on local invertebrate conservation, so watch out
in the AES Diary for meetings in your area.

We have never defined how large an area each Area Rep will
oversee. This is partly because individual entomologists vary widely in
how they work; some travel all over the country to explore new.
habitats, while others prefer to work their home patch thoroughly.
However, for now we are assuming that each Rep will cover the county
in which he or she lives, although it is to be expected that Reps will
have more involvement in and knowledge of sites near their homes.
The one “formal” exception to this is Charles Watson, who lives on the
Hertfordshire/Essex border, and is therefore active in east Hertfordshire
and west Essex,

If you are interested in invertebrate conservation and would like to
get involved in your area then please contact your local Rep if you
lave one. Many of our Reps are involved in monitoring the
invertebrates of local sites, and would welcome any help that other
members can give. If you don't have a local Rep as yet, please consider
whether you would like to take on this rdle yourself. Otherwise, feel
free to contact Martin Harvey or any other Conservation Committee
member if there is a conservation issue that concerns you (for example,
a local site under threat).

If you would like to be involved in the AES conservation network but
live in a county where there is already a Rep, please don't be put off.
Contact either the Conservation Committee or the existing Rep and see
how you can help. In time, we may be able to establish local
conservation groups where enough members live sufficiently close to
each other.

4 Invertebrate Conservation News SS

Six Area Reps attended a conservation meeting held during the AES
Exhibition last October. We discussed various projects in which the
Reps were involved (see “News from the Area Reps”) and a number of
concerns were raised. Within the AES as a whole, there are more
members who specialise in Lepidoptera than in any other group, and
the interests of our Reps reflect this. However, when looking at habitat
conservation for invertebrates it is important that the needs of as many
different groups as possible are taken into account. Several of our Reps
are involved in advising site owners or managers On management of
butterflies and moths, but they expressed concern that they had no way
of finding out about which species of, for example, beetles or flies were
present, and what their conservation needs might be.

In an ideal world a comprehensive survey of invertebrates would be
undertaken before management or planning decisions were made, but
such a happy state of affairs rarely exists. It is possible to give general
guidelines on habitat management for invertebrates without knowing
exactly which species are present on a site, and the AES's own book on
habitat conservation deals usefully with this approach, as does Peter
Kirby's habitat management book, published by the Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds (RSPB); However, advice is. muem more
meaningful if it can be linked to particular species that are known to
occur on the site, and for this reason we invite AES members who
record the less popular groups to get in touch with their local Area
Reps. Even if you only have time to visit a site once or twice- and
record a few species, this helps to broaden the perspective of any
management plans that are being developed. The conservation
requirements of the less popular groups are not always well known,
but anything we can do to make site managers more aware of the
variety of invertebrate life and its needs will be valuable. Our current
Area Reps are listed after the next article, which has been contributed
by the Rep for Worcestershire, Geoff Trevis.

Invertebrate conservation: a local perspective
by Geoff Trevis, AES County Rep. for Worcestershire

A major reason for submitting this note is to remind AES members in
my locality of my existence and to canvass views on field meetings in
1996. I am more than willing to arrange meetings in Worcestershire,
which has many sites of entomological interest, but I would like some
indication as to whether there is likely to be any response from

hai ‘
i my ’

members. I know from experience that organising field meetings can be
unrewarding! Unfortunately I am not yet up to receiving e-mail but, if
you would like to join in field meetings, you can drop me a line at the
address listed below, indicating if you have any particular areas of
interest or expertise. Alternatively, you can phone me during evenings
or weekends. Also some of the meetings of the Worcestershire Wildlife
Trust should be of interest, and I will try to advertise these when the
publication date of ICNallows this.

The Worcestershire Trust's conservation conference in October was
mainly devoted to habitat management for invertebrates and I think it
provided many reserve managers with a new slant on management
planning. Whilst, however, we heard of a variety of prescriptions for
managing different types of habitat, or indeed the value of non-
intervention, I could not avoid the feeling that we often choose the
wrong prescription for a site through not knowing what is present. And
that leads me to my second point. We desperately need invertebrate
records in order to plan effective conservation strategies. Habitat
management is an important issue but conservation has reached one of
the most crucial positions that we have experienced for a very long
time. Implementation of local Agenda 21 and the development of
biodiversity action plans are going to be the driving force for many
years to come.

If invertebrates are going to be a major consideration in biodiversity
planning and in the designation of special wildlife sites, we must know
where the important sites are, and what they support. At the moment,
however, systematic records are woefully inadequate. Entomologists
must ensure that their knowledge is made available and that it is used.
There are a great deal of data on Lepidoptera and Odonata (though we
could do with more!), but for other groups there are very little, and
they are frequently not in an easily usable form. Also, records in local
biological records centres (BRCs) seem too often to be on only a tetrad
basis, which is not sufficiently detailed for local planning. I am
currently chairing a group concerned with, among other things,
biodiversity action planning, the development of conservation strategies
for habitats and species, and the implementation of a “Special Wildlife
Sites” scheme (SWS). I would, therefore, be very grateful to receive
invertebrate records for Worcestershire, and would be even more
delighted to hear from anybody willing to help on a more systematic
basis. Keep sending your records to your county trust and/or local BRC
but please copy them to me if possible. -

fags
by
\e
Ss

reN SS
6 Invertebrate Conservation News mcs

Finally, management and designation of special sites, from SACs and |

SWSs, looms large in conservation thinking. However, if we are to
avoid being left with isolated patches of habitat separated. by
unbridgeable farmland, we must keep a careful watch on the “ordinary”
agricultural landscape. As has been clearly demonstrated, populations
in isolated islands of habitat are very vulnerable. Linear habitats, such
as waterways, hedgerows, verges and railway lines are thought to be
particularly important in reducing isolation, and I would therefore be
interested in records relating to such features and in information about
any that appear threatened. |

AES Area Representatives: address update (November 1995)
(see also the address panel for members of the AES Conservation Committee)

Dr Paul Griffiths |
“Vailima”, Broomhall, Nantwich, Cheshire. Tel: 01270 780626

Dave Hemingway
13 Ashdene Garth, Crofton, Wakefield, West Yorkshire WF4 1PH. Tel: 01924 864013

Neil Jones
31 Drummau Road, Birchgrove, Swansea SA7 9QA.
Tel: 01792 813600; email: neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk.

Roger Kemp
Kemp's Mushrooms Ltd, Kemp's Farm,
Chapel Road, Ford, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP17 8XG. Tel: 01296 748932

Tim Lavery

Farnes, Castlemaine, County Kerry, Eire.

Dr Helen Marcan

11 Heath Close, Milcombe, Please note
Banbury, Oxfordshire OX15 4RZ. } change of address
Tel! 01295, 721989

Robert Partridge
11 New Road, Mepal, Ely, Cambridgeshire CB6 2AP. Tel: 01353 776082

Tony Steele |
57 Westfield Road, Barnehurst, Kent DA7 OLR. Tel: 01322 526888

Roger Sutton
16 Ashford Road, Wellington, Somerset TA21 8QF. Tel: 01823 663510

Geoff Trevis :
14 Old Coach Road, Droitwich, Worcestershire WR9 8BB. Tel: 01905 774952

Charles Watson
18 Thorley Park Road, Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire CM23 3NQ. Tel: 01279 505309

Ce blind = Oe
oe er

Volume 19 + February 1996 7

oa

Biodiversity Challenge and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan

As a result of the Rio Summit in 1992, the British government made a
pledge to develop a biodiversity action plan, and later produced a book
entitled Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan (HMSO, January 1994), which
was largely a statement of actions that were under way as part of the
government's existing work in the conservation of wildlife, genetic
diversity and other natural resources. The non-governmental bodies had
anticipated that there would be a need to encourage the government to
make some additional and very specific commitments, and had
therefore compiled in advance a shopping list of habitats and species,
for which specific protection or recovery goals were defined. This was
published in a 137-page document entitled Biodiversity Challenge under
taemsecrctanyship of the RSPB, Much of the documentation on
invertebrates was supplied by Alan Stubbs, working under the auspices
of Butterfly Conservation and also in consultation with the AES. There
was also a contribution from the British Dragonfly Society.

After consultations with biological societies, a second edition of
Biodiversity Challenge, 285 pages long, was published in January 1995.
This was placed before the “Biological Steering Group” which was set
Upiin order to) neport to the government on a set'of targets for an
objective-setting Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). The Steering Group
report was approved by the government, and was published by the
Department of the Environment on 13th December, just as this issue of
ICN was going to press. A fuller account will appear in a later issue, but
the current news is that about 116 species, including invertebrates, have
been allocated specific programmes for their protection or recovery.

We understand that there were serious limitations in the BAP
procedures for choosing appropriate invertebrate species and for
including invertebrates in general to any adequate extent. Part of the
problem is that invertebrates cannot be properly considered according
tO the, criteria which are currently used to categorise species as
deserving protection or recovery programmes. These critéria have been
developed for birds and other vertebrates, and relate to population
sizes which are very small by the standards of invertebrate population
biology. In any case, accurate data on population sizes do not exist for
invertebrates, owing to rapid fluctuations and to difficulties in carrying
out the necessary field studies.

As has often been said, we probably have to accept that species-
related measures have limited value for invertebrate conservation, since
we can never hope to give special attention to more than a very small

8 Invertebrate Conservation News iss )

proportion of those species which might be at risk of serious decline. It
is therefore welcome news that the BAP also includes a statement
concerning habitats (or more accurately “biotopes”), such as limestone
pavements and raised bogs. However, the selection of biotopes and the
measures required to protect or restore them depends on a knowledge
of their species, which is not always available as far as invertebrates are
concerned. Also, in many cases, a relatively modest number of sites can
assure the survival of plants and vertebrates, even though they may be
too few and isolated to allow the replenishment of invertebrates
following inevitable local extinctions. We understand that invertebrates
were not adequately considered in habitat designation, but a detailed
review of this must await a later issue of ICN.

There is cause for satisfaction in that, apparently, no other country
has yet produced a comparable biodiversity action plan. There is,
though, some concern over the need for funding to finance the BAP.
Some of the funding will have to be raised by the voluntary sector, and
it seems that there will also be pressures on the existing budgets of the
government agencies. :

Sites and species of interest

Quinquennial Review of the UK's Wildlife and Countryside Act

As reported in ICN 18, the. proposed changes to the schedule of
terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates legally protected in the UK
concern the following species: Agrochola haematidea (Southern
chestnut moth), Bembecia chrysidiformis (Fiery clearwing moth),
Coenagrion mercuriale (Southern damselfly), Hadena irregularis
(Viper's bugloss moth), Gortyna borelii (Fisher's estuarine moth),
Lucanus cervus (Stag beetle), Eurodryas aurinia (Marsh fritillary
butterfly), Lycaena dispar (Large copper butterfly), Margaratifera
margaratifera (Pearl mussel) and Catinella arenaria (Sandbow!l snail).

On the basis of information received from entomologists with first-
hand information on some of these species, the AES submitted
comments to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which can be
summarised as follows. For A. haematidea, there are good grounds for
believing that the reported “targeting” by collectors is likely to diminish
through voluntary restraint. Also, there is evidence that the land area
over which the moth is breeding is too extensive for private collecting
to be a demonstrable threat and thus to justify full protection. For B.
chrysidiformis, there is field evidence to support the argument that a
more adequate survey should precede any move to give the species full

protection. For G. borelii, the evidence for “targeting” by collectors or
dealers came from the advertisement of large numbers of eggs, which
might have been obtained from one or a very few adult females. Also,
the mowing of the foodplant, which is by far the main threat to the
moth, has ceased following representations to the National Rivers
Authority so that there now appears to be less justification for full
protection. We are very grateful to all those who supplied information
on these moths, especially Mr Bernard Skinner, Dr Paul Waring and Mr
Joe Firmin.

There was no new evidence regarding EF. aurinia, but there was a
himtemcomecerm about the possible plight of the many amateur
entomologists who maintain breeding stocks of the butterfly, and who
will be allowed to continue doing so but only on the basis of the
current interpretation of the law. Under the Act, anyone possessing a
specimen of a species fully protected on Schedule 5 can be deemed to
possess that specimen illegally unless he/she can prove otherwise.

News from the AES Area Representatives
A report by Martin Harvey, AES Habitat Conservation Officer.

As mentioned in my general report (“News, Views and General
Information”), the AES now has eleven Area Conservation Repre-
sentatives, who are involved in a variety of projects or are keeping an
eye on local sites of importance for invertebrates. The following are
brief accounts of just some of these projects; if you think you can help
with any of them please contact the Area Rep concerned.

Martin Harvey has been continuing to record invertebrates and to
advise management for several Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and
Oxiordshire (SBONT) nature reserves. In particular, BBONT's
Homefield Wood reserve exists largely because of its plant interest — it
is home to several rare orchids. However, the voluntary reserve
manager takes a keen interest in other wildlife, and a number of rare
invertebrates have been recorded over the years, partly thanks to visits
from AES members. Consequently, invertebrates now feature strongly in
the annual reports and management plan. Other activities have
included providing information on Scarlet tiger moths to a local council
when a wetland site providing habitat for this moth (among others) was
threatened with excavation to form a fishing lake, and giving talks and
leading field meetings, often in conjunction with the local wildlife Trust
and Butterfly Conservation branch.

10 } Invertebrate Conservation News i RY,

Neil Jones has also been closely involved in monitoring Marsh fritillary
sites in South Wales, and has highlighted this issue with informative
displays at recent AES Exhibitions. Although the Marsh fritillary
maintains a-stronghold in Wales, sites are ‘still beime lost to
development and the range is contracting. Neil reported a site in mid-
Glamorgan that is threatened by a landscaping proposal, enabling the
AES Conservation Committee to write expressing its concern over the
possibility of further loss to Marsh fritillary habitat.

Roger Kemp and Helen Marcan have been sharing Buckinghamshire
and Oxfordshire between them, with each involved in sites in both
counties. Roger has been looking at three sites that seem to be good for
butterflies but are in private ownership and are not designated as
nature reserves. In cases such as this, it is essential to build good
relations with the site owners, who are sometimes wary of allowing
members of the public on to their land. Roger is in touch with his local
branch of Butterfly Conservation for further help. The sites may also be
good for other invertebrates, but to investigate this requires input from
specialists in the “other orders”. Any offers of help gratefully received!
Helen Marcan has been active in writing letters to local councils and to
her local Wildlife Trust, highlighting good invertebrate sites that she
feels could benefit from more sympathetic management.

In Cambridgeshire, Robert Partridge has been advising several land
owners/managers on the possibility of Goat moths breeding in trees on
their land, and has distributed an information sheet on maintaining
suitable conditions for this species. He has also been involved in
discussion with a local council regarding the felling of some old elm
trees in a local churchyard. Some of these trees were protected by tree
preservation orders, and provided potentially valuable habitat for
invertebrates. Further fellings have now been postponed, pending
further discussion. Robert is undertaking survey work on moths at the
RSPB's Ouse Washes reserve. This reserve contains a large area of
wetland and seasonally flooded meadows, and, although it was
purchased primarily as a bird reserve, it is encouraging to see the RSPB
continuing its commitment to habitat conservation generally. It is also
pleasing that, through Robert's involvement, the AES is playing its part
in this process. The moth survey work will provide information on an
area of land that the RSPB intends to allow to flood for part of the year.

v3

x
-
cae
=

A ae
Ten

a Volume 19 ° February 1996 11

Tony Steele is looking at Saxtons Wood, a Woodland Trust site near
West Kingsdown in Kent. This has become very dense and shady, and
consequently is in poor shape for woodland butterflies. However, this
again highlights our lack of knowledge of the “other orders”; it may be
that such shady conditions are just right for some beetle species, or
perhaps for snails or spiders, but unless people with knowledge of
these groups are able to visit the site and report on it, it is difficult to
assess the invertebrate interest of the wood. Once again, if any other
AES members can help please get in touch with Tony.

Geoff Trevis is an active member of the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust,
whose Breedon Hill reserve has recently been recognised as an
important site for dead wood invertebrates, and is now being managed
with this in mind. Geoff is busy promoting invertebrate conservation
issues through the Trust, and has helped to organise an invertebrate
conservation training day for the county. One other worrying issue
which Geoff reports on is a proposal to make the Upper Severn
navigable for amenity purposes, which could threaten large areas of
valuable habitat for invertebrates and other wildlife. Geoff would be
pleased to hear from AES members in the Upper Severn area who may
know of sites and species of particular interest.

Nonsuch Park, near Ewell, Surrey

In 1994, the “London Naturalist” published an article on the flora and
fauna of Nonsuch Park by Dr June Chatfield and she has kindly
supplied a copy of this, drawing our attention to the very interesting
account of the invertebrates that have been recorded in this area. The
Park and adjacent open spaces occupy 168 ha (416 acres) of grassland
and woodland within an area that has otherwise been almost entirely
engulfed by the south London suburbs. This oasis of countryside was
once part of the deer park surrounding Henry VIII's Nonsuch Palace,
which was demolished in the late seventeenth century, having been
allowed to fall into disrepair. The habitats are quite varied, since the
site covers outcrops of chalk, London clay, Thanet sand, Woolwich and
Reading beds, as well as a strip of alluvium. By the end of World War
II, most of the area had been under the plough at various times, but the
edge habitats and areas of woodland have helped to maintain
biodiversity.

Several naturalists have recorded invertebrates at Nonsuch, either
individually, or at special survey meetings. Dr Chatfield found that the

area known as Cherry Orchard Farm was richer in molluscs than the
Park proper, apparently because of its longer woodland history and
supply of dead wood and leaf-litter. One of the dead wood specialists
is the Glossy snail, Oxychilus helveticus. Peter Harvey has found that
Hymenoptera are particularly well represented, probably because of the
good supply of pollen and nectar in a flower-rich area (Warren Farm).
He has noted the occurrence of seven nationally notable species: the
bees Hylaeus cornutus, Andrena tibialis, Lasioglossum malachurus and
Melitta tricincta; the wasps Pemphredon mori and Lestiphorus bicinctus
and the ant Lasius brunneus. Records of spiders and other arachnids
were supplied by the late Frances Murphy, Peter Harvey and Rosemary
Hill, but more records are needed to cover all seasons of the year. Four
notable species have so far been listed: Zilla diodia from scrub and
three Philodromus species; P. collinus from a woodland edge and P.
praedatus and P. longipalpus (the seventh British specimen so far) from
an old road. Other invertebrate groups recorded include Isopoda and
several insect orders; Odonata, Orthoptera, Dermaptera, Hemiptera,
Neuroptera, Mecoptera, Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. Roger Hawkins
contributed many of the insect records, which numbered 260 by 1993.

Like the few other “oases” of wildlife habitat within the London
conurbation, this area is of outstanding value for informal nature study
and for educational use, but Dr Chatfield points out that it will need
proper designation if its value is to be retained and enhanced. At
present, the prospect of urban development has not been ruled out,
despite a recent public enquiry. Even if the area remains as an urban
space, there could be pressures for over-formal management (such as
occurred in parts of the area in past decades). Dr Chatfield's article
helps to show the need for sensitive management and may encourage
more naturalists to assist with the recording of species and the
assessment of their habitats.

AES Members' Day & AGM
Saturday 20th April 1996

at the Royal Entomological Society of London
41 Queen's Gate, London

10.00am — 4.30pm

For further information write to
Wayne Jarvis at P.O. Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
or telephone 01582 486779.

Obituaries

Eric Bradford

Eric Sidney Bradford, who died in August at the age of 74,
contributed very significantly both to the detailed study of
insects and to conservation. Apart from being an excellent all-
round naturalist, he was an authority on micro-lepidoptera. He
was also a gifted artist, who became renowned for his superb
illustrations of micro-moths. In his work for conservation, he
contributed many valuable records for the evaluation of sites,
especially in his beloved county of Kent, where he went to live
after taking early retirement. He also assisted conservation
bodies in various parts of Britain as an expert in identifying
specimens, and still found time to serve for a while on the AES
Conservation Committee. Perhaps most significantly, he bought
woodland in Kent which he managed for wildlife conservation,
and which he bequeathed in his will for this purpose. Eric was
a very kind and generous man who became a dear friend to
many entomologists, and he will be sadly missed.

David Lonsdale

Frances Murphy

Frances Murphy, who died during the autumn of 1995, was an
outstanding arachnologist who communicated her enthusiasm
to all who knew her, and whose loss has been felt by many
members of the societies in which she played an important
r0le. She was very committed to the tradition of natural history,
and one of the concerns of the last few years of her life was
that the Natural History Museum in London should continue to
_ help to sustain the work of the amateur. She assisted the work
_ of conservation by contributing arachnid records from many
sites and, until her untimely death, she represented the British
Entomological and Natural History Society on the JCCBI.

David Lonsdale

CONTENTS
Fitted 35525 ES ig ee eee aE RESTATE SP a nc (1)

News, Views and General information
Guidelines on legislation for the conservation and protection of

INVETLED TALES (res ce eas Fete oe eeasae Nise eRe ee ee ar HEC eG ee (2)
AES) Area’ Conservation Representatives. eae iaa sdecss: en ccnce eet reek ee areata ae (3)
Invertebrate Conservation: a local perspective. sic. ni ce ene ete eee (4)
AES Area Representatives: Address updates oyu iat i eae ee ty eee eae (6)
Biodiversity challenge and the UK Biodiversity action plan ................:0c100 (7)

Sites and Species of interest

Quinquennial Review of the UK's Wildlife and Countryside Act .......0....00... (8)

News from the AESvArea Represemtativiesie ii.) ctss sant eae eee ees (9)

Nonsuch Park-snear EwelliSumeyye eine SEMA Dat Mare aie Uo (11)
Obituaries

Enrico Bra chord Gee ven. et an Sa sed desta aah, SAIC ours 2G NOR, Se Ne ee (13)

Frances Murphy atic ii joe cutee souls sc acne aac ais. ONes la et ha eee (13)

NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this
Journal are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants
offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss,
embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1996. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 20th February 1996 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from 4 Steep Close, Orpington, Kent BR6 6DS.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1. Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

0).

News

Volume 20 June 1996

J ISSN 1356 1359 | Editor David Lonsdale

A publication of The Amateur Entomologists' Society

4 Entomo log,

@
e

$
af
v
<=
=

Founded 1935
Where to write
For all JCN business, please write to:

AES
P.O. Box 8774
London
SW7 5ZG

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Colin Hart
Neil Jones
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann
Stephen Miles

Martin Harvey

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Photo: Nick Holford _

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION _
NEWS

No. 20, June 1996

Editorial

This issue of JCN includes news of various developments in the UK
which give cause for optimism over the future status of invertebrates in
the conservation movement. In February of this year, there was a
national invertebrate conservation conference in Peterborough (as
advertised in the AES Wants G Exchange List), the first such gathering
ever to provide a chance to debate ideas about the development of our
work. A central theme at the conference was the Biodiversity Action
Plan, as represented by a government-backed report which appeared at
mie end of 1995. sciting targets for the conservation of, selected
invertebrate species and for a range of important habitats. Another
significant advance which is reported in this issue of JCN has been the
formation of the Ancient Tree Forum, together with the launch of
English Nature's “Veteran Tree Initiative”. The conservation of
invertebrates, particularly deadwood species, should benefit from these
moves.

some field naturalists may fear that increased publicity for
invertebrate conservation will encourage calls for further legal controls
of collecting, in ignorance of ecological criteria and of the negative
effect that such measures would have on data acquisition by amateurs.
Ill-informed views will remain a danger as long as people fail to realise
that, for most invertebrates, the loss and isolation of habitats is
immensely more damaging than the removal of specimens. The
biological basis for this fact needs to be explained authoritatively, and

EE

SVEIEITA RSS Se

&
2 Invertebrate Conservation News * X

this is why we should welcome the appearance of a long-awaited
policy statement on the rationale of law which has been prepared by
the Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates
(JCCBD. The JCCBI document, which is in part reproduced in this issue
of ICN, states when laws are appropriate, and when they are not.

In spite of these useful developments, resources for invertebrate
conservation remain very scarce, and too much depends on the work
of a few individuals who are willing to give up their spare time. In
theory, it might be possible to promote the cause more _ strongly
through the existing societies and the relevant statutory bodies, with the
JCCBI acting as an umbrella body. The alternative would be to form a
new society, as happened twenty-five years ago in North America, with
the formation of the Xerces Society. This option was discussed in JCCBI
in the early 80s, but the general view was that the JCCBI should try to
fill the gap by helping the existing societies to work more effectively for
conservation. In reality, however, JCCBI has remained primarily a forum
for discussion and for bringing together expertise which is the basis for
authoritative guidelines and codes of conduct.

Another idea, which has been occasionally voiced over the last few
years, is that invertebrate conservation as a whole could become the
aim of an existing society; namely, Butterfly Conservation. That Society,
formally known as BBCS, has expanded considerably, and has widened
its remit to include moths as well as butterflies. It was however, made
clear at the Peterborough conference that it was not felt appropriate to
widen BC's remit any further.

Clearly, we need to “get our act together”, and this involves fairly
mundane requirements such as making sure people know who we are,
what we are doing and how to get in touch with us. We therefore
require an identity, which might yet be the JCCBI, or it might be a new
organisation; the floor is open for debate. Unless we can acquire more
resources and achieve better publicity, many people who have worked
for invertebrate conservation will find increasingly that schemes related
to the Biodiversity Action Plan and other initiatives will take place
without their proper involvement. This could mean that important sites
are overlooked or mismanaged, and that others will act in our stead,
often in ignorance of well-thought-out ideas which we have developed

over Many years.

a
AY) ~ Volume 20 © June 1996 3

News, Views and General Information

Legislation for the conservation and protection of invertebrates:
the JCCBI policy statement

As promised in the last issue of ICN, this statement is reproduced here.
Readers should note that the reasoning behind the statement's
recommendations is set out in a series of annexes. Due to lack of
space, neither these explanations nor the literature references are
included here, but the JCCBI will be looking at the possibility of
publishing the full document under its own cover.

Preamble

The aim of this policy statement is to provide guidance to all those who
have an interest in the rule of law in the protection of terrestrial and
freshwater invertebrates and their habitats.

Legislation has been enacted in many parts of the world to limit
human activities in the interests of conserving or protecting wild plants
or animals. Specific reasons that have prompted such legislation
include:

@® Concern about possible extinctions of species

@ The need to protect ecosystems

@® Regulation of the use of natural resources

@ Support of conservation management objectives at particular sites
@ The upholding of morals in human exploitation of wildlife

@ Prevention of cruelty to animals

One or more of the above reasons can be applied in particular

cases, depending on the nature of the species or habitats involved,
the types of human activity that are thought to be damaging and the

|
:

I

|

ee

| views of individuals or governments. In all cases it is necessary to

balance these considerations against the principle of upholding the
freedom of the individual to utilise or study wild plants and
animals.

4 Invertebrate Conservation News

Recommendations for each of the above legislative purposes, as
applied to terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates

Concern about possible extinctions of species

Any law that seeks to protect species should, as its prime function,
protect their habitats and not allow them to become so isolated that
chance local extinctions become permanent. For the majority of species
deserving legal protection of habitats, it is not also necessary: to prohibit
collecting.

The criterion for selecting an individual species for protection
against collection should be as follows: that, according to all reliable
evidence, the activities of collectors would significantly increase the
risk of any of its regionally or nationally significant populations
becoming extinct.

The taxonomic position of a species should count towards its being
scheduled only to the extent that some taxa (especially butterflies) are
more likely than others to be collected.

Introductions or re-introductions should normally be controlled by
law only when they involve species or genetic forms not native to the
state concerned. Exceptions may be necessary for economic reasons as
well as in the interests of wildlife conservation.

All those who breed invertebrates in captivity should comply not
only with any legal regulations on collecting or trading in the species
concerned, but also with the relevant ethical guidelines (Anon, 1987,
Collins 1990). However, captive breeding per se should not be
controlled by law.

Protection of ecosystems

Laws intended to protect entire assemblages of plants and animals
should take proper account of the habitat requirements of invertebrates
where these differ from those of other forms of wildlife. In particular,
regulations over land use should aim to reduce the isolation of habitats
of species with poor powers of dispersal.

Regulation of the use of natural resources

Certain restrictions on the importation or handing of non-indigenous
invertebrates may be required in order to protect crops and to exclude
pathogens harmful to economically useful invertebrates.

RAN Volume 20 + June 1996 9

Legislation should seek, wherever possible, to avoid harm to the
livelihoods of those who, without risking the viability of wild
populations, trade in invertebrates or their products.

Support of conservation management objectives at particular sites

At sites which have been legally designated for their conservation
value, there should be provision for controlling specific activities that
are likely to cause significant damage to populations of particular
species or to their habitats. The imposition of particular regulations at
such sites should be subject to expert adjudication. Owners of non-
designated sites which are being managed as nature reserves should
have the means to apply for legal designation so that appropriate
regulations could be applied in support of agreed conservation
objectives. At all other sites, the presumption should be against the
control of activities other than those which would damage owners'
property or infringe statutory management agreements. However, at
sites subject to exceptional visitor pressure, there should be some
provision for imposing appropriate regulations.

The upholding of morals in human exploitation of wildlife

This purpose should not, in itself, be a basis for legislation, but it has
underlying importance in upholding the other five purposes.

Prevention of cruelty to animals

There is no clear case for laws specifically to prevent suffering to
invertebrates other than higher molluscs, except where they come
under existing legislation governing the care of captive animals and the
shipment of animals for trade purposes.

JCCBI, 21st August 1995

The Ancient Tree Forum and the Veteran Tree Initiative

The conservation of British deadwood habitats has been a recurring
topic in /CNand the former “AESCG Newsletter”, going back to the time
when the only people who cared about it were a mere handful of
apparent eccentrics. Things have moved on a bit since then, so that it is
now quite respectable to argue against the unnecessary removal or
burning of this very important type of habitat. As many deadwood
invertebrates apparently have very limited powers of dispersal, they
tend to be even less able than “green plant” feeders to recolonise sites

6 Invertebrate Conservation News as \\,

where there is a temporary loss of habitat. Thus, the only sites where
the most vulnerable species now occur are those where there has been
a continuity of habitat over many centuries.

In the UK, most sites of special value for deadwood habitats contain
very old trees (‘veteran trees”) which contain long-established rot-holes,
and whose dead boughs, both attached and fallen, have been allowed
to decay in situ.

In many cases, these trees were pollarded hundreds of: years ago,
and so have a short bole bearing multiple branches. The branches were
cut periodically to provide products such as fuelwood and leaf fodder
for animals, and the lopping cuts exposed wood which could be
colonised by fungi and invertebrates. The decay of the wood did not
usually cause the death or collapse of the trees, since there was always
new wood being laid down as the trees grew new branches and
increased in girth. Also, the multi-branched form and restricted crown
size was usually less vulnerable to catastrophic decay or wind damage
and thus allowed the trees to survive far longer than unpollarded ones
of the same species. The co-existence of sound and decaying wood for
centuries within individual trees has provided a continuously available
deadwood habitat, which explains why these trees are often the last
habitats for species that once lived in the primal forest.

Although the UK is virtually devoid of primal forest, it is home to
most of north-west Europe's veteran trees. However, due to changes in
land use, the practice of “re-pollarding” had died out in most areas by
the present century. Cessation of cutting often allowed the branches of
a pollarded tree to become so heavy and crowded that they eventually
tore away, sometimes pulling the bole apart and thus ending the life of
the tree. Attempts to forestall this by rejuvenating neglected pollards in
the 1950s and '60s met with very mixed success, but lessons were
learned and there has more recently been a coming together of people
who have the desire and knowledge to do a better job of maintaining
veteran trees and to help ensure that there will be successors for them
when they eventually die or fall apart.

There is now an informal association which is called the Ancient Tree
Forum (ATF), which brings together many disciplines, including
entomology, mycology, arboriculture, amenity and _ landscape
management and rural history. The ATF has taken shape largely thanks
to the enthusiasm of a few activists, who include Ted Green of English
Nature, Helen Read of the City of London Corporation and Keith
Alexander of the National Trust of England, Wales and Northern

+ ‘

ROR Re of,

J os\ Volume 20 ° June 1996 7

Ireland. Field meetings are held about three times a year, usually on a
weekday, and usually attract 30-40 people. Information can be obtained
by sending a stamped addressed envelope to Dr Keith Alexander,
National Trust, 33 Sheep Street, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 1QW.

Just before this issue of /CN went to press, the Ancient Tree Forum
was approached by English Nature, who are running a Veteran Tree
initiative under the leadership of Phil Horton. They have some funding
to aid various projects which could be pursued by interested
organisations, such as the National Trustland local authorities. These
projects will include publicity to help people recognise and develop a
desire to protect veteran trees, and also the documentation of trees and
the sites where they occur. Use could be made of the parish-based
wardening scheme, which is promoted by the Tree Council. There will
be a special focus on some of the rare species that depend on veteran
trees, such as the Violet click beetle, Limoniscus violaceus, which has
been the subject of a promising habitat creation project by Ted Green
(see “Sites and Species of Interest”). Deadwood conservation should
benefit considerably from these developments, and we hope to provide
some news of progress in future issues of ICN.

Biodiversity Action Plan: publication of the UK Steering Group
Report

As the last issue of JCN was going to press, we had time just to mention
that the Steering Group appointed by the UK government had
published its report. The report was commissioned following the
signature of the Biodiversity Convention at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
At first, it seemed that there would be merely a review of existing
projects in relation to the government's Rio commitments. However,
thanks to the challenge laid down by a grouping of voluntary
organisations, under the leadership of the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds, the Steering Group was given the remit to set firm
action plans for the conservation of selected species and types of
habitat, together with costings. The plans will operate at both national
and local levels. This means that, provided that the government
formally accepts the report as the basis of its Biodiversity Action Plan
(BAP), there could be a considerable boost for conservation in the UK.
Pessimists might argue that extra spending to meet these targets will be
offset by cuts elsewhere, but this remains to be seen.

It was mentioned in JCN 19 that the selection of invertebrate species
for action plans was fraught with difficulties, since in some cases the

8 |

aR
ey \J
nvertebrate Conservation News AN

qualifying criteria were not entirely appropriate, while in other cases
the criteria could not be properly applied due to lack of filed data. For
example, there are many invertebrates for which it is not possible to
say whether they are “globally threatened” or have “declined by more
than 25% in numbers or range in’ the ‘last 25 years?) Nevertheless:
conservation has to be the art of the possible, and we should welcome
any initiative that gives invertebrates a little of the prominence that they
deserve in conservation. This is certainly true of the report, since many
invertebrate species are represented, even if not in quite the numbers
that would match their biodiversity relative to plants and vertebrates.

The species targeted fall into three main groups. The first is a “short
list” of 121 (116 according to the summary of the report), including 45
invertebrates. These include the ground beetle Carabus intricatus, the
mole cricket Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa and the snail Vertigo moulinsiana,
whose presence was cited recently as a reason for halting the Newbury
bypass. For these species, costed action plans have been prepared.
Each plan examines reasons for the decline of the species and proposes
ways of halting or reversing it. There is then a “middle” list including
just under 300 species, for which action plans will be produced during
the next three years. Finally, there is a “long list” of about 1250 species,
which are to be reviewed in the longer term.

The report also identifies thirteen “key habitats”, which have been
given costed action plans. Examples include species-rich hedgerows,
limestone pavements and reedbeds. There are also 37 “broad habitats”,
for which statements have been prepared. Examples include native
pinewoods, lowland wood pastures and unimproved neutral grasslands.

The report comes in two volumes, expensively priced at £26 and £30,
and is available from HMSO, PO Box 276, London SW6 5DT.

Less Intensive Farming and the Environment (“LIFE”)

LIFE is an EC scheme that provides opportunities for farmers to reduce
inputs of agricultural pesticides and fertilisers so as to benefit wildlife
and the general environment. This is not organic farming, but land
areas registered within the scheme receive about one third less in the
way of inputs overall, with some chemicals being entirely withdrawn in
some cases. Some interesting results involving invertebrates in cereal
fields are now being observed. The modern practice in most British
cereal fields is to control weeds using herbicides in the seedbed and
later to spray the crop with other chemicals for the control of aphids

tH :
AN Volume 20 « June 1996 9

and other insects. Farmers who have omitted these treatments in some
of their fields are now reporting better control of aphids than in
conventionally sprayed fields. Since aphids are vectors of a serious
disease caused by the Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus, the benefits have
been very obvious in some cases.

The reason why aphid attack was less severe in the low input system
seems to be that it provided better survival of predatory invertebrates.
This confirms the well-established findings of the Game Conservancy,
Fordingbridge, Hampshire, where it was shown that the rise of aphids
as a cereal pest has been largely brought about by spray regimes and
cultural practices which harm beneficial invertebrates and their habitats.
To help overcome this problem, and also for the benefit of wildlife, the
Game Conservancy has developed its well-known systems involving
“beetle banks” and unsprayed headlands. Perhaps the LIFE programme
will encourage more farmers to use these ideas.

Sites and Species of Interest

The Violet click beetle Limoniscus violaceus

This deadwood insect is one of twelve beetles on the Biodiversity
Action Plan short-list, and is currently included in English Nature's
Species Recovery Programme. In the March 1996 issue of EN's
magazine, there*is an article about two schemes to save _ this
internationally rare species from extinction in the UK. At one of the two
UK sites where it is recorded, Windsor Forest SSSI, English Nature's
local representative Ted Green has succeeded in creating an artificial
“habitat tree” for the beetle, which could supplement the one remaining
tree where it occurs naturally. He has been re-erecting fallen, hollow
stems, and filling them with a mixture of fresh beech sawdust, racing
pigeon manure and the occasional dead bird or squirrel, thus
apparently simulating the natural habitat. One of these stems proved to
have been naturally colonised, when five larvae of the beetle were
found in Ted's mixture. In the long term, the answer is of course to
provide a natural succession of suitable trees, which will also be of
value for many other deadwood organisms, and Ted Green will
continue to pursue this aim through the Ancient Tree Forum (see
above), even after his retirement from EN.

The longer-term approach is being pursued at the other site where
the beetle is known to occur, the Breedon Hill SSSI in Hereford and
Worcester. Through co-operation between EN and local landowners,

~ lag
10 Invertebrate Conservation News RAN

Rnd NeninMitee.autdekoie uae NAG Sek

work is being done to help develop a succession of suitable trees to
replace the ancient ones which are just about surviving at the site.
Younger trees are being pollarded so as to encourage the formation of
rot holes, and about 300 new ones have been planted.

National Moth Conservation Project (Butterfly Conservation and
Joint Nature Conservation Committee)

Throughout the time when JCN was not appearing, Paul Waring, the
project officer for this scheme, had been supplying news, which we
unfortunately could not print when it was current. Paul's latest bulletin,
which has of course been sent to all participants in the scheme, gives
news both of general projects, like the atlas of rarer macro-moths, and
of particular species. Some of the news on species is relayed here.

Among the species recently investigated, the Black-veined moth,
Siona lineata, has been discovered at a third colony in Kent, and the
Reddish buff, Ascometia caliginosa, bred and produced adults in the
wild in Britain on the first known occasion for over thirty years. Also,
Paul Waring was commissioned by the Countryside Council for Wales
to do a survey of the Silurian moth, Eriopygodes imbecilla, which was
being -considered for. addition to Schedule 5 of the Wwaldlite=c&
Countryside Act (1981). Paul's work showed that the moth was not, as
had been feared, confined to a single gully in Monmouthshire,
indicating that there was no need for scheduling, which is meant to be
reserved only for last-ditch Cast gully?) cases.

Paul Waring also reports that he has managed with great difficulty to

maintain the last remaining British stock of the Essex emerald moth,

Thetidia smaragdaria. His captive-bred colony has outlived the moth in
the wild, which apparently became extinct in 1991. However, there are
signs of inbreeding in the colony and, and it seems likely that this
contributed to the moth's demise. Paul now thinks that the introduction
of continental genes may be necessary for any successful re-
introduction.

eu. Volume 20 + June 1996 11

Special Feature

AES Conservation Policy

The Society's policy on insect conservation was first published in 1980,
when it was sent out as a single-sheet publication to all JCN readers. At
the end of 1993, the policy was reviewed and re-affirmed with one or
two minor amendments. Since many readers might not even realise that
this policy exists, we are printing it as follows.

The Society's policy towards conservation embodies the following
aims:

1. To draw attention to the need for insects to be adequately
considered in all wildlife conservation activities and to
emphasise:

the great ecological importance of insects;
human dependence on insects, direct and indirect;

the beauty and the scientific value of insects.

2. To help foster a climate of opinion in which ecological criteria
rather than public popularity determine the place of insects in
the allocation of resources for conservation.

3. To encourage and support the amateur entomologist in the
recognition and conservation of valuable habitats.

4. To publicise the special habitat requirements of insects and to
seek ways of lessening the damage caused through ignorance of
these requirements.

The Society will work towards these aims in the following ways.

Conservation at specific sites

@® Encouraging amateurs in survey and management work.

@ Co-operating with local conservation bodies in surveying and
management.

ie

—_~ Cy 4
; 6 »

12 Invertebrate Conservation News J\s. mn

PA as Sere rele Sopeenation Ee a

@® Contacting individuals and organisations not primarily concerned
with conservation but whose activities can affect interesting sites
(e.g. local authorities and landowners).

Organising and promoting field meetings at sites of interest.

Providing support and expertise to promote the conservation of
individual threatened sites (e.g. evidence at planning enquiries).

The protection of insects and their habitats from unnecessary destruction

@ Opposing the destruction of habitats through a desire for tidiness (as
happens when dead wood is destroyed or wild areas in towns are
grassed over).

@ Discouraging the collection of rare insects or the collection of large
numbers of other insects without good reason.

@® Attempting to ensure that any laws or other regulations which aim
to conserve insects are based on ecological principles.

@ Encouraging the adequate consideration of insects in the selection of
any sites for nature conservation purposes.

@ Encouraging the conservation and enhancement of insect habitats
on all land outside special conservation areas, paying particular
attention to habitat fragmentation.

Publications and communication =

® Liaising with other organisations by consultation over specific sites
and also by promoting the views of the Society.

@ Encouraging the participation of landowners in ecologically based
insect conservation.

@ Encouraging individual entomologists to make the views of insect
conservationists known to local organisations and individuals.

Producing a special newsletter on insect conservation. ;
Producing other advisory information. =
Encouraging co-operation between the amateur entomologist and

workers in related fields.

First published May 1980, revised December 1993 £

SY Volume 20 + June 1996 13

Past Meeting

Invertebrate Conservation Conference, Peterborough

This conference was organised by Alan Stubbs on behalf of the JCCBI.
Its tithe was Unity of Purpose for Invertebrate Conservation and it
focused on maintaining the biodiversity of British invertebrates. It
addressed the lack, so far, of effective co-ordination between all the
organisations involved in this work, and took a fresh look at the
rationale of the JCCBI itself. One of the questions asked was whether
we want just a talking shop, or is there also a need for a new
organisation dedicated to the conservation of all terrestrial invertebrates?
The question remained largely unanswered, but it was aired sufficiently
to encourage some debate within the various societies. They now need
to decide whether they can “go it alone” or need to pool resources?
One possible option that some people had been considering was that
Butterfly Conservation could widen its remit to embrace all
invertebrates, but Dr Martin Warren, who was one of the speakers,
explained that this was not felt to be an appropriate direction for the
Society.

Another speaker, Graham Wynne (Director of Conservation for the
RSPB), gave the background to the recently published Steering Group
Report for the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP: see above). He perceived
the need for invertebrate conservation to be put on a stronger footing,
so that we would be able to work effectively through the BAP. He
explained how the BAP would be implemented through a series of
local BAPs, with either wildlife trusts or local authorities taking the lead.

Other very interesting talks were given by Keith Porter (English
Nature), who spoke powerfully about the relative neglect of
invertebrates, and Keith Alexander (National Trust Biological Survey
Team), who gave an example of the working of a local invertebrate
group, based on experience in Gloucestershire.

Eo CD)

CONTENTS

| BX 11 0) y Fl urea animes ig eater eR LT bony es UR eMRR A mir Mas a SeUNR TUE Di DE SERIA NT rN coocdaba chads (1)
News, Views and General information
Legislation for the conservation and protection of invertebrates: the JCCBI
POlicy StateSMMent, ee Hess oes Ne ees cae eS UR ce ES Soe ee (3)
The Ancient Tree Forum and the Veteran Tree Initiative b.03...0...: es Puke aes (5)
Biodiverity Action Plan: Publication of the UK Steering Group Report ......... (7)
Less: Intensive, Farming and the Environment: ClIhE)) ce .e. revere trees cet (8)

Sites and Species of interest
The Violet click beetles MijnonmisEUs VIOIACCHIS = ie ape ee ee ee (9)
National Moth Conservation Project (Butterfly Conservation and Joint

Nature: Conservation Committee eerie Pete ee ie a ee ee ete (10)
Special Feature
AES Conservation POMCY. ry. icic.egitiens. lounseecdeease deci tuc see ase oe een eee eee eee (11)
Past Meeting

Invertebrate Conservation*Conteremce, Peterprough... (2. eee (13)

NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this
Journal are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants
offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss, —
embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1996. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 20th June 1996 by the Amateur Entomologists! Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from PO Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

et

Invertebrate
nservation

n

Editor David Lonsdale

ISSN 1356 1359

A publication of The Amateur Entomologists' Society

Founded 1935

Where to write
For all JCN business, please write to:
AES
P.O. Box 8774

London
SW7 5ZG

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Martin Harvey
Neil Jones
Owen Lewis
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann
Stephen Miles

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Photo: Ian Macfayden

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION _
NEWS

No. 21, October 1996

Editorial

Some years ago, a well-known conservationist was asked an unusually
intelligent question by a BBC interviewer. The question was whether it
was justifiable for one taxonomic group (1 won’t reveal which) to
receive disproportionately high conservation expenditure just because
the group concerned was exceptionally popular and therefore attracted
the generosity of the public. He acknowledged that other forms of
wildlife were also important, but was firmly of the opinion that
expenditure should indeed reflect popularity. Such a view does not
leave much hope for the conservation of invertebrates, perhaps with
the exception of the most showy kinds. It is therefore a view that many
of us would challenge, but we cannot ignore the fact that we have to
work in a world of human likes and dislikes and indeed prejudices.
Thus conservation, like politics, is the art of the possible: the things that
can be achieved are not always the most justifiable in strictly biological
terms.

If a new society for invertebrate conservation is formed in the UK
(see below under News, Views and General Information), it will need to
consider its priorities very carefully. It will be wide-ranging in
taxonomic terms, potentially concerning itself with all terrestrial and
freshwater invertebrates. This means that any resources that it devotes
to individual species will have to be very judiciously targeted. Any such
species should be selected not just because people like the look of
them, but also because we can learn things of general interest through
studying and conserving them.

In practice, the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) will for several years

be the main factor in our selection of species and habitats for special
attention. The species on the BAP lists were not all chosen on the best

2 Invertebrate Conservation News F (s

of criteria, but they will provide us with a new focus for action. On the
other hand, there will always be a need to ask whether we are
concentrating our efforts on the right things. For example, how valid is
it to devote special funding to the recovery of a species just because it
is confined to a few sites? Some species in this position have the
potential to flourish again if some of their lost habitats are restored.
Others might be declining inexorably for subtle reasons, involving the
genetic structure of their populations.

One benefit of learning the habitat requirements of a few species in
detail is that we thereby learn some general principles about the
complexity of the requirements of many other species. This does not,
however, mean that sites should in general be managed for particular
species that we happen to like, to the possible detriment of others
whose habitats we may harm or destroy in the process. This is more
like gardening than conservation, and we should have the humility to
accept that our favoured species survived quite happily until recent
times without being treated as garden exhibits. A littlke gardening may
be necessary in a few last-ditch cases, but there are more generalised
forms of management which can benefit a wide range of species
through maintaining structural diversity within the managed areas.

Not only species but also sites can be favoured for questionable
reasons. Most of the plant and animal communities that we treasure in
the UK have developed largely under the influence of land-use by
humans. This is no reason why we should not try to sustain them, but
we need to think carefully about the values that we attach to different
types of community. To take one example, the habitats of various
moorland invertebrates expanded during past millennia with the
destruction of upland forests and the resulting loss of soil fertility. If
those forests existed today, most conservationists would be up in arms
over any attempt to destroy them. This is not necessarily an argument
for creating plantations of exotic conifers, but man-made forests, like
moorlands, have some ecological value. Indeed, one can even envisage
a situation where British conservationists of the future’ might tie
themselves to Sitka spruce trees!

Number 21 ¢ October 1996 3

News, Views and General Information

A new invertebrate conservation society?

The editorial in JCN 20 mentioned the idea of forming a new society for
the conservation of British invertebrates. There are of course a number
of existing invertebrate societies which work for conservation, and the
societies collectively have also long worked through the JCCBI Joint
Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates). The JCCBI has
sought to win for invertebrates the attention that they deserve within
the conservation movement. However, an umbrella group like the
JCCBI cannot easily promote active projects, even though it has been a
useful forum for discussion and has produced some important advisory
documents and codes of conduct. Unlike an individual society, it does
not have an executive structure and a home-base from which actions
can be instigated and implemented.

As long ago as 1984, the JCCBI tried to find a way of filling some of
the gaps in invertebrate conservation. Essentially the choice was then
between (a) trying to make the JCCBI more like a society and (b)
setting up a new society. On balance, the first option was preferred at
that time because a new society would have involved a new
administrative and fund-raising structure which might have drained
membership and resources from the JCCBI member-organisations.
There was also the fear that the conservation role of these societies
might be usurped. Although these worries have not gone away, we can
take heart from the experience of plant conservationists following the
formation of PlantLife. The botanical societies that existed before the
new organisation seem to have increased their involvement in
conservation and have found ways of co-operating with PlantLife. It
seems that the existence of PlantLife has encouraged members of the
traditional societies to become more involved in conservation.

As far as competition for membership is concerned, the existing
societies offer a range of services and activities which will almost
certainly guarantee them considerable loyalty from members. Any new
society would, however, need to avoid straying inappropriately into
roles that were already being fulfilled by more specialist organisations
(such as Butterfly Conservation and the British Dragonfly Society)
which already have conservation as a primary aim.

Although the balance of the JCCBI’s decision twelve years ago was to
doubt the advisability and feasibility of setting up a new society,
experience has since shown that the JCCBI could not do the work that
was needed. It was for this reason that the question was addressed

4 Invertebrate Conservation News S

again at last February’s invertebrate conference in Peterborough. In
response to that discussion, the JCCBI Conservation Committee has set
up a steering group to examine the feasibility of forming a new
society. This involves consulting interested organisations including all
the member-organisations of the JCCBI. It is hoped that the JCCBI will
vote one way or the other on this important issue at its main meeting
in late November.

AES policy on exhibition sales

The availability of items for sale has always been one of the main
attractions of the AES Annual Exhibition. Until recent years, the
Exhibition was the only venue to offer the chance both to see
entomological exhibits and to purchase books, equipment, livestock
and deadstock.

The sale of specimens, whether living or dead, has become an
increasingly contentious issue. On the one hand there has been an
increasing trade in large showy, often tropical, insects which are
regarded more for their decorative or curiosity value than for their
scientific interest. On the other hand, many people have come to view
with distaste the whole business of selling (or indeed collecting)
specimens. Although these trends oppose one another, they both
mainly involve people whose interest in natural history does not
involve in-depth field study. Their views often conflict with the interests
and freedom of others whose studies necessitate the collection of
specimens or the breeding of species in captivity.

Anti-collecting views are often based on the plight of various
vertebrates that have been ruthlessly hunted or persecuted. There are,
in contrast, very few invertebrate species that are threatened by
collecting, and these can be identified by biological criteria, as defined
in the JCCBI policy document on the role of legislation in invertebrate
conservation. These criteria have to be considered when species are
considered for legal protection in the UK under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act (1981). For the vast majority of species that do not
meet the criteria, it is nevertheless important that we should give them
the respect that they deserve as living organisms that share this planet
with us. This does not mean giving up the freedom to study them, and
neither does it mean that it is necessarily wrong to make one’s living by
trading in them. However, we need to question the justification of
activities that involve the removal from the wild of large numbers of
specimens of any species. Such activities include both trade and the
amassing of long “series” by individual collectors.

|

.

vi |
- Number 21 « October 1996 5

The AES has a duty to uphold national and international laws, and it
also recognises that it has a role in identifying activities that, although
legal, are not in the best interests of modern entomology. Earlier this
year, it was put to the AES Council that the sale of all deadstock and
livestock at the Annual Exhibition should be banned. This proposal was
defeated mainly on the grounds that the sale of insects is a major
attraction for many of the Society’s members. It was also acknowledged
that the Society ought not to frown upon activities which are beyond
reproach. These include the sale of captive-bred specimens and the
supply of specimens from old collections which are very valuable for
reference purposes.

The decision made was to impose a selective ban using defined lists:
(1) the Biodiversity Action Plan for Britain, prepared by the Joint
National Conservation Committee, (2) the International (UCN) Red
Data Book and (3) the Red Data Book. However, on reflection, Council
decided that this list was not appropriate and withdrew it for the 1996
event. Council acknowledges that any ruling will carry imperfections
and anomalies, but is now asking members to express their views on
the trading of livestock and deadstock through the Society. Any
comments should be sent to the AES Insect List, PO Box 8774, London
SW7 5ZG by 31st January 1997.

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan
an update by Alan Stubbs

On 15th May the UK Government made its long awaited response to
the published report of its steering group (see ICN 20 — ed.).

Just to recap, in June 1992 the Government signed the Biodiversity
Convention at the Earth Summit in Rio. In January 1994 it published its
report, Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan and set up a_ Biodiversity
Steering Group composed of governmental and non-governmental
representatives who were asked to prepare costings and recom-
mendations on the implementation of Biodiversity: The UK Steering
Group Report. With the direct involvement of the Department of the
Environment and other arms of the governmental process, it was hoped
tat this report would be accepted largely fulfilled, since the
Government’s response in May was positive.

As explained in ICN 20, the report recommended three phases of
action, represented by the “short”, “middle” and “long” lists of species
respectively. The short list includes over 100 species for early action
plans, of which 43 are invertebrates, and these plans have been

6 Invertebrate Conservation News

approved more or less in their entirety. Action plans for the species in
the middle and long lists for the second and third phases are yet to be
drawn up, and there may also be some room behind the scenes to
adjust the lists themselves.

As with the listed species, habitats are divided into the first batch, for
which action plans are published, and others for which plans are still
being written up. For example, one of the approved plans makes a
commitment for the re-establishment of 6000 ha of heathland.

The approved report also has implications for broader land-use
issues, including underlying Government policies.

Is this too good to be true? Time will tell. Government or, more
accurately, certain ministers have made what seems to be genuine
commitment, though couched with provisos over the state of the
economy. It is also worth noting that the Labour shadow government
has made clear that it will adopt the same measures if it is elected.

The Government’s response has both positive and negative aspects.
On the positive side, it has issued a Command Paper, which is
perhaps something stronger than we might have expected. The Prime
Minister has endorsed the plans and targets, and all arms of
Government are drawn in; not just DoE and the conversation
agencies.

On the negative side, the response is weak where extra resources are
concerned. Undeed, the simultaneous cutting of funds to English Nature
and Scottish Natural Heritage, with subsequent cuts affecting the Joint
Nature Conservation Committee, do not ring well.) Pre-existing action
plans are watered down to varying degrees and there is still rather a
sprinkling of words that are open to flexible political interpretation. The
machinery for implementation could become bureaucratic if it is not
handled well. In particular it has, at the time of writing, not yet become
clear how far the Government will go in redirecting money that it
already spends on countryside subsidy.

The working of the Plan will be overseen by “Implementation
Groups”, including a UK Steering Group (a smaller version of the
original one), “Focus Groups” for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
a “Target Group” and an “Information Group” (for data). Some non-
governmental representation is proposed.

All this may sound like cloud-cuckoos flying around an ivory tower,
rather detached from the real world. The name of the game is to
prevent that from happening and to keep the pressure on the official
machine so as to ensure that targets are met.

Number 21 ¢ October 1996 7

It is worth reflecting that societies can make a serious impact on
results. Early on in the process it looked as though the Government
was going to produce hot air and little in the way of tangible new
commitments. Fearing a whitewash, six non-governmental organisations
(Butterfly Conservation, FoE, The Wildlife Trusts, RSPB, WWF and
PlantLife) got together and produced Biodiversity Challenge (editions 1
and 2) which set targets for species, habitats and a whole range of
policy areas. This made it difficult for anyone to say that targets could
not be devised within the short time-scale available. Much of the
Steering Group Report resembles a re-edited version of Biodiversity
Challenge target statements. The message is that if one gets in quickly
with an initiative, considerable influence on issues and policies is
possible. What is more in this exercise is that invertebrates are given a
conspicuous profile in species targets and that much of the thinking on
habitats and broader countryside issues is invertebrate-friendly. (This
owes something to help from the official side, as well as to voluntary
input.)

So what next? There is plenty of scope, and just a few ideas are
highlighted here.

— Local Action Plans need an invertebrate input and that is up to local
entomologists. Here’s your chance. Don’t complain afterwards if no
one has done the right things. Remember, you can make a
difference; contact your local Wildlife Trust office to see how you
can be part of the action.

— The re-creation of 6000 ha of heathland and other habitat targets is a
wonderful chance to influence the ecological structure of new
habitats to suit invertebrates.

— Keep your MP on his or her toes if Government commitment seems
to be slacking.

— As a member of societies, help them in their efforts to become
effective voices for invertebrate conservation.

-Yhe purpose of the Biodiversity Action Plan is to maintain
biodiversity in the UK. It means maintaining the range and status of all
species, or indeed to enhance status. It means ensuring that common
species don’t decline, as well as being positive about the rare ones. It
means implementing a whole range of habitat action plans and more
amenable policies for the wider countryside. And for you, it means that
you should be better able to do something towards halting the decline
of the animals that you want to be able to go out and see in the future.

Ee
~<

+)
WS
8 Invertebrate Conservation News an \

We are seemingly at one of the major turning points in wildlife
conservation, but we must make very sure through action that it is not a
mirage. Collectively, as societies, our strength can grow if we care to
use it wisely. Societies need to identify their roles and to consider what
new structures may make their voice more effective.

Genetic engineering: fears over “scorpion virus”

Some time ago the AES and other organisations expressed concern over
experiments involving a virus which had been modified by the insertion
of a scorpion toxin gene. The project was undertaken by the Institute of
Virology and Environmental Microbiology at Oxford to investigate the
feasibility of using the virus to control lepidopterous pests. Some
invertebrate conservationists were worried because the virus concerned,
Autographa californica polyhedrosis virus, has a very wide host range
and can attack many non-target species. In the wild, this virus co-exists
with its hosts, but the balance could in theory be disturbed if a more
lethal form of the virus were released.

There are strict legal controls over the release of genetically
engineered organisms into the wild, and the Oxford team had only got
as far as carrying out experiments in an insect-proof enclosure, rather
than in the open environment. However, many conservationists were
worried that the work was being done out-of-doors and near a site of
high conservation value (Wytham Wood, Oxfordshire). The (then) head
cf the research team, Dr David Bishop, sought to allay any fears by
pointing out that the virus would not be capable of becoming generally
established in the environment, since it would not persist outside the
area of a treated crop. In any case, the first trials had shown that the
virus, though more aggressive than the wild type, did not kill the pest
caterpillars fast enough to be used commercially. Nevertheless, the
latest news that we have was that the US Environmental Protection
Agency was not sufficiently satisfied with this evidence to grant
permission for field trials.

Evidence for benefits from beetle banks

For many years, the Game Conservancy, Fordingbridge, Hampshire has
carried out research to help develop ways of controlling cereal pests by
providing habitats for natural predators and reducing the use of
pesticides. One of their important findings has been that generalist
predators such as carabid and staphylinid beetles are important in
keeping pests like aphids at a low level. The more well-known predators
like ladybirds become important only when the aphid density is high.

-—

by 5
Les } Number 21 + October 1996 g

A particularly interesting finding was that some of the staphylinids
feed on both fungal pathogens and aphids, so that excessive control of
fungi like mildews reduced the staphylinid population and helped the
aphids to reach pest proportions. More recently, detailed behavioural
studies of these staphylinids, including Philonthus cognatus and
Tachyporus spp., has been helping to identify features of the habitat
which could make them more effective as natural control agents. An
example is a paper published by P. Dennis and N. Sotherton in
Pedobiologia, 1984, 39; 222-237.

Applied research at the Game Conservancy led to the conservation
headland system, whereby the edges of an arable field are protected
from high pesticide inputs and become refuges for generalist predators.
This achieves both the conservation of the invertebrates that can live
around field margins and provides a food source for insectivorous game
birds which have declined on intensive arable land. For large fields, in
which distances from the edges to the field centre are too great for the
movement of predators, the beetle bank system was developed. Beetle
banks are strips of “weedy” vegetation which cross the field at intervals.
The idea has evidently spread to Switzerland, where some recent
research seems to support the findings of Nick Sotherton and others at
Fordingbridge. A paper by J. A. Lys et al. (Entomologia Experimentalis
et Applicata, 1984, 73: 1-9) provides evidence of increased abundance
of carabid beetles as a result of using a beetle bank system.
Overwintering was also enhanced, as shown in some other work by Lys
et al. (Pedobiologia, 1984, 38: 238-242).

Sites and Species of Interest

Twyford Down motorway route, Hampshire: translocating chalk
grassland

The 1995 Annual Report from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology gives

|

news of early progress in a project designed to re-establish plant and
animal communities that were present in an area of chalk downland
destined for destruction by the extension of the M3 motorway near
Winchester. In the report R.G. Snazell, J.M. Bullock and L.K. Ward
acknowledge that other attempts to translocate plant and animal
communities have not met with the success that might have been
hoped for. However, this scheme involved the use of improved

_ techniques to help overcome problems experienced elsewhere.

10 Invertebrate Conservation News

The problems in trying to translocate intact turf from a grassland
include frost damage and desiccation, leading to the loss of sensitive
plant species such as orchids. Also, deep-rooted species may die out
because too much of the root system is left behind when the turf is cut.
Yet more species can die out after translocation if the receptor site does
not suit them. Translocated invertebrates suffer from general
disturbance, from loss of foodplants and from the severance of the
burrows of subterranean species.

The intention in this project was to help overcome some of the
problems of translocation by the use of “macro-turfing”, in which the
translocated turfs are cut to a thickness of up to 30cm. About 3000m? of
turf were transferred in this way from a species-rich site known as the
Dongas to another site known as Arethusa A. The Dongas site was
destined for destruction, while the status of Arethusa A is not
mentioned in the report. A further site on the old A33 road was also
selected for restoration work.

It was not possible to cover the whole of the Arethusa A site with
translocated turves, and some areas were therefore sown with locally
collected seed mixes or planted with pot-grown plants also of local
provenance. The seed collections were done with care to minimise
damage to the sites of origin.

The success of the project is being assessed through the monitoring of
several invertebrate groups such as butterflies, beetles, spiders, true bugs
and ants. In 1994, two years after the translocation and seeding, the
results looked promising both for plants and for invertebrates. The plant
species contained within the turves increased from 56 to 58, and 52 of
the 58 species sown as seeds were in evidence. Others, such as the
pyramidal orchid (Anacamptis pyramidalis) were thought to be present
but not yet apparent owing to their slow rate of development. Among the
invertebrates transferred with the turf, the spiders Atypus affinis (a deep-
burrowing species) and Xysticus acerbus (a “Notable A” species) were
still present. The Chalkhill blue butterfly, which had been a major
concern at the M3 Public Inquiry, was present at very high densities.

It will be interesting to see whether the improved methods used at
this site will be successful in the long term. The criteria for evaluating
success will, however, need to be carefully selected, since there would
probably have been some natural changes in species composition and
abundance within the Dongas turf even if ‘the M3 had not been
extended and the Dongas had been left intact. Also, the new sward in
the seed and planted zones of Arethusa A is providing a rapidly
changing habitat for invertebrates as it develops.

ce! Number 21 « October 1996 11

Even if the project proves to be highly successful in the long run, it
ought not to be used as a green light to those who would seek to
destroy habitats or damage landscapes for the sake of such things as
fast cars or out-of-town hypermarkets. Successful translocation fails to
cancel out the fragmentation and nett loss of habitat that brutal
developments cause. We must also remember that such developments
harm the human environment as well as wildlife habitats. Large-scale
translocation is also very expensive (the M3 project was funded by Mott
MacDonald Civil Ltd.),and the money involved could perhaps be used
to much greater effect in less ambitious forms of conservation work.

Orthoptera in Somerset

The 1996 issue of the Somerset Wildlife Trust’s journal Nature in
Somerset includes an interesting article on grasshoppers and bush-
crickets by Elizabeth Biron, the Survey Manager at the county’s
Environmental Records Centre. This includes some mention of recent
changes in distribution patterns of some species. Two species which
have been extending their ranges towards Somerset are Roesel’s bush-
cricket (Metrioptera roeselii) which is now present near the Somerset
boundary at Bath, and the Long-winged cone-head (Conocephalus
discolor), which was found breeding within the county in 1995. An
already-established Somerset species with an expanding range is the
Rufous grasshopper (Gomphocerippus rufus) and it is suggested in the
article that its colonisation of new sites might pose a problem for
conservation management since it requires long turf, unlike the Stripe-
winged grasshopper (Stenobothrus lineatus) which sometimes lives
alongside it but requires short turf. Managers should, we suggest, refer
to the AES book Habitat Conservation for Insects which explains the
need for a mosaic of sward heights, such as can be developed through
rotational management.

It may be that warmth-loving insects like Orthoptera are benefitting
from hotter summers and/or milder winters, but some species are still
in a precarious position due to habitat destruction. One example in
Somerset is the Large marsh grasshopper (Stethophyma grossum), which
is known there only from a nature reserve on the Somerset Levels and
has its stronghold in the quaking bogs of the New Forest in Hampshire

| and in the Wareham area of Dorset. It requires very wet ground, and
| suffers both from drainage and inundation. After the discovery of the

Somerset colony in 1942, the species declined severely in abundance due
to peat cutting operations and is now threatened further by the raising of
the water table and the resulting flooding of the old peat cuttings.

12 Invertebrate Conservation News (s

South Devon undercliffs: survey and review of terrestrial
invertebrates

This part of the southern English coast is being surveyed by M.
Edwards and C.M. Pulteney for English Nature. The first phase involved
the section from Prawle Point to Start Point and comprised both the
completion of a review of existing invertebrate data and a survey of
neglected groups. This stretch of coastline is now considered to be one
of the top two sites in Britain on coastal cliff “head” deposits, and steps
are being taken to ensure the adoption of appropriate changes in
management, which were suggested as a result of the survey. Further
work has been taking place between Axmouth and Lyme Regis, and
work is also planned for the Sidmouth to Beer stretch of the Devon
coast.

Tree felling at Queen Anne’s Ride, Windsor, Berkshire

The decline of trees in Queen Anne’s Ride prompted the Crown Estate
to fell and replace this avenue for historic and landscape reasons.
However, the Crown lands at Windsor are of national importance for
deadwood invertebrates and fungi, and the trees concerned were an
important part of the habitat. Many organisations, including the JCCBI
as our umbrella group, wrote to appeal against the felling policy, only
to be told that the work was going ahead regardless. However after the
felling of about 60 trees, the work was halted, and it became evident
that a more enlightened policy had been adopted. English Nature was
invited to assess the wildlife potential of the remaining trees. Dr Roger
Key of English Nature reports that the remaining oaks in the avenue
have been reprieved, but that some of the limes damaged by adjacent
cultivation would probably be felled. Also, there were about 200 dead
oaks outside the avenue, some of which would have to be felled for
safety reasons; this applied to at least 60, which were near roads. Roger
has found that most of the dead trees appear to be of value or potential
value for saproxylic invertebrates.

Newbury Bypass route

The conflict over the construction of the A34 trunk road bypass at
Newbury, Berkshire has repeatedly hit the national headlines in Britain.
Newbury is one of many towns that have suffered severe traffic build-
up and pollution thanks to the failure of successive governments to
develop an integrated transport policy. Thus, the bypass seems to offer
a solution to a genuine problem. However, even apart from any doubts
about the durability of this solution, the chosen route — to the west of

)

a ,
@.

te Number 21 © October 1996 13

(4

the town — will desecrate valleys which are both beautiful and of
exceptional value for wildlife. Among the area affected is the Rack
Marsh Nature Reserve managed by the Bucks, Berks, and Oxon Wildlife
Trust (BBONT).

One phase in the Newbury “battle”, which demonstrated the growing
public profile of invertebrate conservation, was the parading of a rare
wetland snail, Vertigo moulinsiana, to stop the bypass. This species is
one of about 120 that form the Biodiversity Action Plan “short” list, and
the argument was that destruction of its habitats was contrary to the
Government’s endorsement of this plan under its international
commitment to the Rio Convention. The valleys of the Lambourne and
Kennet, both of which lie in the way of the bypass, contain the most
important British populations of this snail. Although the construction of
the road will not wipe out all the colonies of V. moulinsiana, it will
destroy some important ones and will probably threaten others in the
long term owing to alterations in drainage patterns.

A recent issue of the BBONT’s Wildlife News mentions that there. are
other very rare wetland species which will suffer from the bypass
scheme. This include the water beetle Rhantus suturellus and the
caddis flies Matelype fragalis and Ylodes conspersus.

Contrary to all the reasoned arguments against the scheme —
arguments which came from statutory as well as voluntary conservation
bodies, it is now going ahead. Not only is it going ahead, but the
design of the road is even more harmful than need have been the case.
Where the route lies along or crosses the valley floors, the road will be
built on embankments rather than viaducts, so that the impact on the
landscape, on drainage patterns and on the dispersal patterns of
invertebrates will be severe. It is hard to believe that this would all be
happening if the planners had been required to carry out and act upon
an environmental impact assessment. Under a current EC Directive,
such an assessment would have to be carried out for any newly-
proposed scheme. However, the Newbury Public Enquiry pre-dated this
Directive. We can only hope that this might be the last time that a
scheme of such national significance can be forced through without

_ proper regard for the environment.

Editorial: gee. sec F soe as eee ca ee a aS A Se (1)

News, Views and General information

A new invertebrate:cOnServatiOn SOCIG By? sone. sexes clan as eee (3)
AES policy onexhibtion Sales. Tec s2ce cook ees anes (4)
The UK. Biodiversiby: Plann set ceccre eect ee ee ee ee URE it (5)
Genetic engineering: fears Over. SCOrpion, VinUSe =. ere. ee (8)
Evidence for benefits fromubeetle banks (72:35. ene ee ee (8)

Sites and Species of interest

Twyford Down motorway route, Hampshire: translocating chalk grassland . (9)

Orthoptera ‘in SOMENSELE oo eseeec on ch sec eases aoe ear ect Me (11)

South Devon undercliffs: survey and review of terrestrial invertebrates ........ (12)

Tree felling at Queen Anne’s Ride, Windsor, Berkshire .c...-22c (12)

New: bury bypass route sh... ihc BA ae ee (12)
NOTICE

It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this
Journal are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants
offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss,
embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1996. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 20th October 1996 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from PO Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

ES or

| eA] : bes ee i en

Invertebrate
Conservation

oi Se yee es é = Yeap

Number 22 February 1997

ISSN 1356-1359 Editor David Lonsdale

A publication of The Amateur Entomologists' Society

Founded 1935
Where to write

For all JCN business, please write to:

AES
P.O. Box 8774
London
SW7 5ZG
Telephone: (0976) 828142

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Martin Harvey
Neil Jones
Owen Lewis
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann

Stephen Miles

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Photo: Nick Holford-

Fiery ie%

INVERTEBRATE |
CONSERVATION
NEWS :

No. 22, February 1997

Editorial

This issue of JCN contains a new section on research relevant to
invertebrate conservation. Research news has always figured in ICN, but
we hope that the new section will give it more prominence.

Many of our previous items of research news have concerned the
biological control of pest species. Only a very small proportion of
invertebrate species are serious pests, but they have to be controlled
somehow. In many cases, this has involved the use of broad-spectrum
pesticides that harm populations of non-target species. Such chemicals
can sometimes be wholly or partly replaced by biocontrol agents
(including other invertebrates, vertebrates and micro-organisms), and
there have been successful examples of this over many decades. On the
other hand, the use of chemicals has grown much faster than biocontrol
and is increasingly seen as a problem in relation to the health of
humans and domestic animals as well as the survival of non-target
wildlife. Unfortunately, unsuitable non-native biocontrol agents can also
harm non-target species, and the harm is perpetuated because they are
often able to multiply in the environment. Indeed, there have been
some disastrous cases where indigenous plants and invertebrates have
been wiped out. In JCN we will continue to report both good and bad
stories about biocontrol.

There are various research projects aimed towards conservation
management. Some of these involve detailed studies of the habitat
requirements of particular species, as in the case of the Large blue
butterfly, Maculinea arion. This insect was re-introduced to Britain after
becoming extinct in the late 1970s, and the success of re-introduction
depended on a very detailed knowledge of its habitat requirements. Of
particular importance was the work of Dr Jeremy Thomas who

2 Invertebrate Conservation News is:

discovered that the ants associated with the butterfly had to be of a
certain species, Myrmica sabuleti. Studies involving single species help
not only to benefit those species, but can also provide some insight into
the range of habitat requirements of a much wider range of species. On
the other hand, there is an increasingly recognised need also for a
broader-brush approach. The elucidation of very detailed habitat
requirements can only be directed towards a tiny proportion of
endangered species, and in any case needs to be complemented by
other research on the population dynamics of invertebrate populations.
In particular, we need to know the requirements for the size and
proximity of habitat sites in order to allow the natural replenishment of
colonies following chance local extinctions.

An area of research that holds particular interest for amateurs
concerns the effects of re-introducing or augmenting invertebrate
populations. The advisability of this has long been called into question,
disappointingly so for some people. On theoretical grounds, re-
introductions might harm other species in the release site, while
augmentations could also perhaps adversely effect the genetic structure
of receptor populations. For these and other reasons, the Joint
Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates has published a
code for carrying out work of this kind. There is, however, a need for
better research-based guidelines, and this need has been confirmed in a
recent review of the effects of translocations conducted by members of
the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology UTE Report for 1995-6, p. 48-51). It
is perhaps worth recalling from the early 1970s, that the erstwhile AES
Conservation Group proposed a project (which was rejected) to assess
the effects of re-introducing the Adonis blue butterfly (Lysandra
bellargus) to a site in the Chiltern Hills in England.

News, Views and General Information

AES policy on exhibition sales

As mentioned in JCN 21, the Council of the Amateur Entomologists’
Society has been reviewing its policy on trading at the Society’s annual
exhibition. In the past, the Society’s main concern was to ensure that
traders were abiding by UK and international laws for the protection of
species deemed to be at risk from commercial exploitation. However,

there is also cause for concern over some species that, although not —

protected by law, are collected from the wild in great numbers for
trade. Also, quite apart from species protection, the Council supports

the growing view that it is better to gain enjoyment from the many =.

re

EM Pdottrhtuteodng vue

=
“asp

S. 4
° 4
~~

>

Se) Number 22 « February 1997 3

ways in which invertebrates can be studied as living organisms than to
trade in specimens as though they were postage stamps or household
ornaments. |

The prominence of trading in invertebrates at the AES Exhibition has
come in for some criticism at a personal level in recent years, and the
matter was eventually discussed by the Society’s Council, prompted by
a letter that had been sent to the AES President. The Council felt that an
undue emphasis on trading was helping to perpetuate a negative image
of entomology. Its initial decision was to prevent exhibition sales of all
species included in a range of national and international lists denoting
some degree of vulnerability. It was realised from the outset that this
was a compromise which might not achieve a desirable change in the
flavour of the Exhibition. Equally, it was bound to rankle with those
who, quite logically, believe that the only valid role of controls is to
protect species demonstrably at risk from such exploitation; not to
impose morality. The proposals attracted strong objections, not least
because of the glaring anomalies embodied in some of the red data and
other listings. The Council therefore decided to lift the restrictions,
pending a period of consultation with interested parties. Comments and
suggestions have been invited via the main AES Bulletin, and will be
carefully considered by the Society’s Conservation Committee and
Council. However, it seems from the very nature of the controversy that
there is probably no fundamentally correct solution.

Coppice for Butterflies Challenge

As mentioned in the Autumn/Winter 1996 edition of Butterfly
Conservation News, the Forestry Authority (Great Britain) has launched
the above-named scheme as part of a package of grants which represent
the FA’s response to the report of the Biodiversity Steering Group (UK).
Coppicing provides the warm sunny conditions required by woodland
butterflies, and probably compensates for the absence of natural glades
and gaps in the tree canopy which would have occurred in the primal
forest. In managed woodlands, several of these butterfly species have
become largely dependent on coppicing and have suffered greatly
following its abandonment in most parts of Britain. There is therefore
considerable justification for the restoration of coppicing to help save
these and other invertebrate species from further decline. On the other
hand, great caution is needed to avoid excessive damage to habitats that
have developed in neglected coppice and in areas that were not
formally coppiced. The “do’s and don't’s” are very well set out in Paul
Waring’s section of the AES handbook on insect conservation.

as
SNK

4 Invertebrate Conservation News rs

The FA project involves eight regions which are thought to contain
abundant restorable coppice and to support low populations of eight
targeted butterfly species. The regions were selected in collaboration
with Butterfly Conservation (BBCS), towards its New Life for Old
Woods Campaign, supported by Land Rover. The discussions involved
Dr Martin Warren of BBCS and Fred Currie, the FA’s Wildlife
Conservation Officer, assisted by information sent in from BBCS
branches. There was also consultation with Dr Keith Kirby of English
Nature. Within the eight regions, woodland owners are being invited to
submit proposals for FA grant-aid, initially on a three-year basis. The
targeted species are as follows: the Wood white (Leptidea sinapis) and
five fritillaries; the High brown (Fabriciana adippe), Heath (Mellicta
athalia), Pearl-bordered (Clossiana euphrosyne), Small-pearl-bordered
(C. selene) and Duke of Burgundy (Hamearis lucina). Also, beyond the
eight regions, one-off payments of up to 50% of cost are available for
certain types of management for restoration of “neglected” woodlands.

Road verge nature reserves; the Nottinghamshire approach

Roadside verges, when sensitively maintained, are a good wildlife
habitat, often lying between the hostile carriageway and hardly less
hostile intensive arable fields. As linear habitats, they may also help to
provide “corridors”, although this remains a debatable issue, as with
hedgerows. Unfortunately, over-zealous mowing or mowing at
unsuitable times of year has often reduced floristic diversity and wiped
out invertebrate colonies. In response to such problems, the
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust is working with the County Council to
establish verge reserves.

The Nottinghamshire Council has already listed 27 verges as reserves,
of which the longest, as reported in the Trust’s Autumn 1996 newsletter,
is one of 3000 metres at Gamston. The shortest is only 10 metres long,
at North Collingham. To date, 17 butterfly spp. have been recorded on
verges in the county, although no mention is made of other
invertebrates. At least for butterflies and plant diversity, the use of two
cuts per year and the removal of the mowings seems to be suitable.
However, it can be inferred that some consultation with specialists with
knowledge of other invertebrate groups would be useful here. At three
of the verge reserves, farmers do the mowing and remove the produce

for hay.

Se wr pO PET J CT Pa Ps en

at
AY Number 22 ¢ February 1997 5

News from AES Area Representatives

Compiled by the AES Habitat Conservation Officer, Martin Harvey.

The twelve AES Area Conservation Representatives had a busy year in
1996. Between them they were involved in recording and surveying
invertebrates, advising on conservation at particular sites, writing
management plans for good invertebrate sites, helping to save local sites
under threat and liaising with county Wildlife Trusts, the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds and many other groups. We could, however,
achieve even more for invertebrate conservation if more of our members
were willing to get involved! We would welcome new representatives
for parts of the British Isles not already covered, and the most common
request I get from existing Reps is “how can I find more entomologists
to help with local recording and conservation?” With the current
emphasis on biodiversity, more and more organisations such as Wildlife
Trusts and local authorities are keen to know how they can help
conserve invertebrates, and there just are not enough entomologists to
go round. I know that entomologists tend to be very busy people, but if
you are able to help with recording, habitat management or any other
aspect of conservation, please get in touch with your local Rep. The
following are brief summaries of the activities of AES Conservation Reps
during 1996. I was unable to contact all the Reps in time for this issue of
ICN, so my apologies for the gaps in coverage for some counties.

Cheshire Area Rep: Dr Paul Griffiths, Vailima, Broomhall, Nantwich,
Cheshire. Tel: 01270 780626.

One of Paul Griffiths’ major projects this year has been the writing, with
other local naturalists, of a management plan for Sound Common, a
local nature reserve near Nantwich. The proposed management for this
site was for heathland restoration, although heathland currently forms
only a small part of a mosaic with damp woodland and bog. These
non-heathland habitats are associated with the rarest species at the site,
including several invertebrates, and Paul’s group were concerned that
this had been overlooked. This case is a prime example of how the
needs of invertebrates can easily be overlooked if there is not a
concerned entomologist “on-site” to raise their profile. We hope to
publish an account of this project in a future issue of ICN.

Cleveland Area Rep: Jan Mascall, 18 Alberta House, Highfield Road,
Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS4 2NP.

Ian Mascall is the latest AES member to sign up as an Area
Conservation Rep. He is particularly interested in butterflies, moths and

e
6 Invertebrate Conservation News (ss

dragonflies. Like other Reps, he would be keen to hear from other AES
members who would like help with conservation in the area. Ian has
supplied the following report on some of his recent projects:

Recently I have become heavily involved with my local Cleveland
Wildlife Trust, giving people advice on various plants to cultivate in
woodlands and private gardens. At present I visit local reserves
during my work-experience training to NVQ Level 2 in conservation.
While on site, I have been doing butterfly surveys, recording
numbers and species present, and noting the plant species for
possible breeding sites.

Coatham Marsh, Redcar: This site is very important for wading
birds in winter, but is also abundant with butterflies during the
summer months. The summer of 1996 was the best for many years,
especially for the Common blue (Polyommatus icarus), which was
plentiful; sometimes 20 specimens were seen in the space of an
hour. Small tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae) larval nests were to be
found at the bottom of the fence, protected against the north-east
wind. Also plentiful were Small heath (Ceononympha pamphius) in
the grassy areas.

I have yet to do a mothing night on the reserve, but I do know
that Drinker moths (Philudoria potatoria) are plentiful, having found
many of their larvae on the grasses. Five-spot and Six-spot burnets
(Zygaena trifolii and Z. filipendulae) are also common. This site is
typical marshland with lots of Phragmites reed and other marsh
plants. It also has a few patches of Hairy willowherb, which is the
foodplant on this site of the Elephant hawk moth (Deilephila
elpenor).

Saltburn Gill, Saltburn on Sea: This site on the north-east coast is a
woodland set in a valley, and the Cleveland Trust has been
monitoring it for some years now. It comprises mixed woodland
with oak, beech, birch, willow and hazel, but has areas of bracken
on the grassy slopes. It also has quite a few patches of blackthorn.
This site has a good population of butterflies, and we are pleased to
find that our colony of Commas (Hesperia comma) is still thriving.

The Gill has a stream running through it, but the stream is dead
due to the old mines above it which have contaminated it with iron
ore, leaving it rust-coloured. However, the banks and sides are very
rich in fauna and flora, and all the common butterfly species are
present. One species that has increased recently is the Orange-tip
(Anthocharis cardamines). Its foodplant, garlic mustard, has been
very successful and many adults were noted in May and June.

a te et

Number 22 ¢ February 1997

These are just two sites of interest, but if any members have other
records for these sites, or know of other sites in Cleveland worthy of
interest please let me know. For instance, does anyone know of any
White-letter hairstreak (Strymonidia w-album) colonies near
Hartlepool?

West Yorkshire Area Rep: Dave Hemingway, 13 Ashdene Garth,
Crofton, Wakefield, West Yorkshire WF4 1PH.

Eire National Rep: Tim Lavery, Farnes, Castlemaine, County Kerry,
ire:

South Wales Area Rep: Neil Jones, 31 Drummau Road, Birchgrove,
Swansea SA7 9OQA.

Tel: 01792 813600, e-mail: neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk

Worcestershire Area Rep: Geoff Trevis, 14 Old Coach Road,
Droitwich, Worcestershire WR9 8BB. Tel: 01905 774952.

Geoff’s activities this year have been focused on establishing local
recording schemes for Worcestershire Wildlife Trust. He is in touch with
several local entomologists, but he echoes the pleas of other AES Reps
for more entomologists to get involved in local recording, particularly
for the less well known groups of invertebrates.

Buckinghamshire Area Rep: Roger Kemp, “Pipistrelles”, Kemp’s
Farm, Chapel Road, Ford, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP17 8XG.

Tel: 01296 748932.

Roger Kemp has continued to monitor several local butterfly sites,
including a private woodland with a good Black hairstreak
(Strymonidia pruni) colony. Over the last couple of years the Brown
argus (Aricia agestis) has spread in Bucks. (and elsewhere) to new sites
where its normal foodplant, Common rock-rose, does not grow. Roger
is studying the feeding habits of Brown argus caterpillars which have
colonised his garden, feeding on Cut-leaved crane’s-bill in this case.
Other activities include supplying information to the local Wildlife Trust

_ for their “Biodiversity Challenge” project.

Cambridgeshire Area Rep: Robert Partridge, 11 New Road, Mepal,
Ely, Cambridgeshire CB6 2AP. Tel: 01353 776082.

Last year Robert Partridge reported on some old elm trees in his village,
which had been threatened with felling despite being designated with
Tree Preservation Orders. Felling was postponed, but Robert has
continued to monitor the trees, as some have died this year and may

come under threat of felling again. The living trees are thriving, and

om £)

8 Invertebrate Conservation News S

Robert found White-letter hairstreaks (S. w-album) on them this year,
making this only the third colony known in Cambridgeshire. Another
local threat comes from a proposed landfill site; Robert’s local
knowledge has enabled him to provide species lists for nearby sites that
could be affected by polluted ground water, so that the local authorities
can take these into account in their environmental statement for this
proposal. Robert continues to record moths for the RSPB at Ouse
Washes, and is representing the AES on the East Cambs. Forum, a
group of active naturalists set up to advise the county Wildlife Trust.
The most unusual of Robert’s projects, however, must be a survey of
the prey of the Golden oriole, a scarce breeding bird in eastern
England. Among the prey items that Robert has identified are
caterpillars of the Herald (Scoliopteryx libatrix) and Poplar hawkmoth
(Laothoe populi), and adults of the Hornet clearwing (Sesia apiformis).

East Hertfordshire/West Essex Area Rep: Charles Watson, 19
Thorley Park Road, Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire CM23 3NQ.

North-east Essex Area Reps: Nigel Cuming/Jerry Bowdrey, c/o 33
Holly Road, Stanway, Colchester, Essex CO3 5QL. Tel: 01206 330019.
Nigel Cuming and Jerry Bowdrey are active recording a variety of
invertebrates, especially beetles, on sites in north-east Essex. They have
been working closely with the RSPB and the Colchester Natural History
Society, and would be pleased to hear from any other AES members
who could help with this valuable survey work.

Somerset Area Rep: Roger Sutton, 16 Ashford Road, Wellington,
Somerset, TA21 8QF. Tel: 01823 663510.

In a recent AES Bulletin June 1996,Vol. 55 pp. 105-121) Roger Sutton
reported on the butterfly reserve that he purchased in the 1970s and
has been involved with ever since. Management of this site and work
with the local branch of Butterfly Conservation continue to take up
much of Roger’s time, and he is also active in the butterfly s1QuP for his
local Wildlife Trust.

Berkshire Area Rep/Habitat Conservation Officer: Martin Harvey,
10 Kiln Ride, Upper Basildon, Berkshire RG8 8TA. Tel: 01491 671889,
e-mail: mh@naturebureau.co.uk

A number of requests have come from the local Wildlife Trust for
information on invertebrate species. Often this has been in connection
with the species that are listed on the various biodiversity lists, both the
“official” government steering group list and a variety of other local —
lists. Invertebrate recording has been carried out on a variety of sites, —

¢
rs Number 22 « February 1997 9

‘g

including National Trust properties and privately-owned SSSIs. Martin
has given talks and led field meetings for local societies, and led two
“bug-hunts” for local children.

Kent Area Rep: Tony Steele, 57 Westfield Road, Barnehurst, Kent
DA7 OLR.

Most of the AES Reps are working on local projects of one sort or
another through their county Wildlife Trusts, and this is undoubtedly a
good way to promote invertebrate conservation before a wide and
sympathetic audience. Many Trusts are having to find out more about
the invertebrates on their reserves as part of the current activities
focusing on biodiversity conservation. There has never been a better
time for entomologists to get involved in local conservation and I hope
that as many AES members as possible will do so, either through the
Reps or their own efforts. Please contact me, Martin Harvey (address
above), if you would like any more information about the AES and
conservation.

Research Notes

In the past, ICN has carried many items on research relevant to
invertebrate conservation. Now we are giving research a section of its
own, although some research-related items may still appear in other
sections such as “Sites and Species of Interest”. The items below have
been compiled by Owen Lewis of Leeds University. He has been
casting his eye over recent issues of zoological and conservation
journals, and has attempted to summarise some of the more interesting
papers. We hope that this will be useful to JCN readers who do not
have convenient access to an academic library. In the space available
we can only pick out some of the more interesting aspects of the
papers that Owen has found, and anyone wanting to read the full story
should obtain copies of the original versions.

Carabid beetles shed new light on site evaluation and
management

The articles reviewed in this issue come from a special issue of Annales
Zoologica Fennici 33: 1-241 entitled “Population biology and
conservation of Carabid beetles”. The issue, edited by Jari Niemelae,
includes contributions to the 3rd International Symposium of
Carabidology (Kaunianen, Finland, September 1995), and several of the
articles are of conservation interest.

~< ‘
10 Invertebrate Conservation News a3 (ss

Carabid beetles have become popular tools in conservation research
because they can be sampled easily and consistently using pitfall traps.
This has allowed them to be used in environmental assessments. In a
study entitled Ecology and conservation of heathland Carabidae in
eastern England (pp. 133-138), M.G. Telfer and B.C. Eversham carried
out surveys of carabids in Breckland, the Humberland peatlands (for
example, Thorne and Hatfield Moors) and the cover-sand heaths of
Lincolnshire (for example, Risby Warren). The Brecklands of East
Anglia have a very rich carabid fauna (167 of approximately 350 species
known from Britain), including one species — Cymindis macularis —
confined to the area. Telfer and Eversham compared the carabid faunas
of different habitats within Breckland. Breckland reserves proved not to
have a rich, characteristic or threatened assemblage of carabids. In
contrast, a previously unrecognised habitat category, “traditional
arable”, supported the majority of the Breckland carabid fauna, and
individual species also appeared to be more abundant there than on
the grass heaths usually recognised as the most important Breckland
habitats. The exceptions were carabids which are specialists on sand-
dune and ling (Calluna)-dominated habitats. The “traditional arable”
habitat is mechanically disturbed each year, has a low, sparse
vegetation dominated by annual plants, a high percentage of bare
ground and a southerly aspect. It is not a habitat that would be
recognised as of conservation importance on botanical grounds.

Further support for the use of invertebrates in conservation
evaluations comes from surveys carried out on Hatfield Moors. Six
vascular plant species and eight bryophyte and lichen species, all
nationally common, were found in a 4m?’ quadrat on this site. A pitfall

trap and a water trap in the same quadrat produced 346 insect species; _

one of these was new to Britain, three were endangered (Red Data
Book Category 1) and 15 (three of them carabids) were nationally
scarce! Telfer and Eversham argue that botanically-guided selection and
management of the heathland sites have failed to protect a large
proportion of the carabid fauna in the areas they studied.

Sowing of wildflower meadows to replace ryegrass is generally seen
as a beneficial conservation activity, and is actively encouraged by
many conservation organisations. Increases in plant diversity resulting
from such activity are easy to monitor, but what effect does the creation
of wildflower meadows have on the invertebrate fauna? In a study by S.

Blake, G.N. Foster, G.EJ. Fisher and G.L. Ligertwood (Effects of —

management practices on the carabid faunas of newly established

wildflower meadows in southern Scotland) the carabid fauna of nine

=
a

2 }
he Number 22 * February 1997 11

sites was monitored between 1989 and 1993, with a total of 67 carabid
species being recorded. The sites varied in the height of the sward and in
the degree of management applied. In general, sowing of wildflower
meadows did increase carabid diversity. However, managed grassland
sites of all kinds — including wildflower meadows — had a carabid fauna
quite distinct from unmanaged semi-natural habitats, and there was no
evidence that wildflower meadows had been colonised by the carabid
fauna from unmanaged habitats nearby. Colonisation — if it can occur at
all — must take at least five years. It would be interesting to see how
other invertebrate taxa are affected by wildflower meadow creation and
management. Insects feeding on herbaceous plants, and species like
hoverflies, bees and butterflies which require nectar or pollen resources
as adults might respond very differently from most carabids.

im anotier interesting paper, B.C. Eversham, D.B. Roy and M.G:
Telfer (Urban, industrial and other man-made sites as analogues of
natural habitats for Carabidae) argue that the decline in natural and
semi-natural habitats in the UK has to some extent been offset by the
creation of new man-made habitats which re-create the specialised
conditions required by certain carabids. While specialist species have
declined more than generalist species in the UK, some specialist species
have maintained or even expanded their range — the authors argue — by
colonising newly created man-made habitats. For example, flooded
colliery spoil at Bell’s Pond in South Yorkshire has high salinity, and
has been colonised by the saltmarsh species Bembidion minimum and
B. iricolor. Similarly, quarries and railway lines are occupied by species
more typical of inland cliffs and scree, and cave or burrow dwellers like
Laemosthenes complanatus and L. terricola inhabit cellars and stables.
Thirty-five percent of rare and scarce carabids now occur in what most
non-entomologists would consider very poor quality habitats.

: Sites and Species of Interest
Dragonflies in Surrey
The Surrey Wildlife Trust produces a newsletter for biological recorders
working in the county. The November 1996 issue (No. 5), includes
several interesting items about invertebrates. Mike Thurner writes about
the first county record of the dragonfly Libellula fulva (Scarce chaser)
by the River Wey. This sighting, made by Peter Follett, author of

_ Dragonflies of Surrey, followed some previous sightings along the

|
|
|

_ Hampshire stretch of the Wey, the first of which had been made during

a meeting of the Alton Natural History Society. By contrast, another

sh

ath
12 Invertebrate Conservation News AR

species, Leucorrhinia dubia, seems to have disappeared from Surrey,
and the reasons for this are reviewed in an article by Mike Thurner and
Alison Tutt. They point out that it is mainly a boreal species, which used
to have its most southern British colonies in Surrey. It was first recorded
there in 1921, but in recent years seemed to remain established at only
two sites; Wisley Common until 1977 and Thursley Common until 1992.
Occasional sightings elsewhere continued until 1995, but there were
none in 1996. Apparently, the last habitat at Thursley was an artificial
crater, and plans to blast new ones there have now been implemented.

Invertebrate studies funded by English Nature
Surveys of the following species and sites are listed in the 1996 edition
of English Nature Science.

e Biodiversity Action Plans
— Invertebrates of the South Essex Terrace gravels.

Autecological studies and species recovery:

— Ladybird spider (EFresus niger); investigation of old and recent
sightings and captive breeding project.

— A ground beetle (Panagaeus crux-major); review and survey of
status and study of habitat requirements with a view to a recovery
programme.

— Blue ground beetle (Carabus intricatus)

— New Forest cicada (Cicadetta montana); monitoring of population
changes, survey of potential releasing sites and assessing feasibility of
captive breeding.

The New Forest cicada project is also mentioned in a recent issue of
the magazine of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. In
conjunction with the English Nature contractor, Dr Lena Ward of
Furzebrook Research Station, the Trust is helping to locate) am
populations that are not yet known. To this end, it has been appealing
for volunteers to listen out for the high pitched song of the male cicada
during May and June. Older members or those with impaired hearing
need not apply!

Castlemartin Ministry of Defence firing range, Pembrokeshire

Michael Griffith, Chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales has
highlighted several areas of interest in an article published in the MoD’s
conservation magazine, Sanctuary 25: 1996. One of these is the
Castlemartin Range in Pembrokeshire, which is partly designated as an
SSSI and is a candidate as a Special Area of Conservation by virtue of its

ey
a Number 22 ° February 1997 13

maritime limestone cliff flora. The same issue of Sanctuary includes an
article by Richard Ellis on the area’s dragonfly fauna. He is a member of
the local Recording and Advisory Group, and Warden of the National
Trust’s adjoining Stackpole Estate.

Mr Ellis writes that the Castlemartin Range includes some excellent
dragonfly habitat, especially at its western end, where there is an old
ruined mill (Frainslake Mill). Upstream of the mill, a pond by a disused
pumphouse provides habitats for five species, including the two largest
of Britain’s dragonflies, the Emperor (Anax imperator) and the Golden-
ringed dragonfly (Cordulegaster boltonii). The others are the Common
darter (Sympetrum striolatum), the Hairy dragonfly (Brachytron
pratense) and a spectacular species of damselfly, the Banded
demoiselle (Calopteryx splendens). The Hairy dragonfly is of particular
interest, as it is mainly a southern species within Britain, with few
outposts in west Wales.

With the Range as a whole Mr Ellis has so far recorded ten species of
Odonata, although the relevant 1km squares only chalked up six
species in an atlas that appeared in 1985. He expects to add at least
three and possibly six more, which have been found just outside the
boundaries of the Range; these include the Scarce blue-tailed damselfly
Uschnura pumilio), the Black-tailed skimmer (Orthetrum cancellatum)
and the Yellow-winged darter (Sympetrum flaveolum).

Future Meetings

AES conservation field meeting

Geoff Trevis, AES Area Rep for Worcestershire, and Martin Harvey,
Habitat Conservation Officer, will be leading a field meeting on 2nd
mucust at ihe Wevil’s Spittleful reserve, near Kidderminster,
Worcestershire. The meeting starts at 10.30am, and we will also be
running moth-traps in the evening, meeting at 8.00pm. Devil’s Spittleful
is a nature reserve for the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, and is one of
the few remaining areas of heathland in the county. A number of
heathland invertebrates have been recorded from the site, and we hope
to add significantly to knowledge of the invertebrate interest of the site
during this meeting. Geoff Trevis is involved with promoting
invertebrate recording in Worcestershire, and is keen to make contact
with entomologists who record in the county. This meeting is joint with
the British Entomological and Natural History Society. Please contact
one of the leaders in advance if you wish to attend, and to find out the
exact meeting point. Geoff Trevis (01905) 774952 or Martin Harvey

(01491) 671889).

CONTENTS
Fitba ens cick oc cssin se sea ae es ee area Raa So PR So EN REE 1

News, Views and General information

AES policy on: exiibtiomysalles cc. 225. .cinessencen sastace acne Sate een eens 2
Coppice for Butterflies Ghallen Ges sii as: s-cestc-ceemsisee ons: ceeneont: eee eee eee 3
Road verge nature reserves; the Nottinghamshire approach ............cee 4

News fromAES Area® Representatives! xc ccseuc- cess -coceescac- tonto eset ee as ut eee 5

Research Notes
Carabid beetles shed new light on site evaluation and management ............ 9

Sites and Species of interest

Dragonflies im Simrey eke. b ocean mee ee ee eee el
Invertebrate studies: funded by ‘Englisht Nature ea... set case eee 12
Castlemartin Ministry of Defence firing range, Pembrokeshire ..................... 12

Future Meetings
AES Conservation field miG@eune 9 <5)... 6 eno -eesctee ora te ee 14

NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this
Journal are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants
offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss.
embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1997. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 25th February 1997 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from PO Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

ta == ~~ pa

Editor David Lonsdale
gists Society

June 1997

on

ion of The Amateur Entomolo

a
oa)
2
E
S
=

Sf) Y) Sed
$ al bog
‘= ea —
o : aS
Y £ Hae io
e oe
= ce
Z ZR

Conservati

Founded 1935

Where to write
For all JCN business, please write to:

AES
P.O. Box 8774
London
SW7 5ZG

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Martin Harvey
Neil Jones
Owen Lewis
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann

Stephen Miles

ting Co. Lid., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
c

1ed by Wayne Jarvis. Photo: Nick Holford

a
|
i
|

| FISTOR’

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION
NEWS

No. 23, June 1997

Editorial

We report in this issue of JCN that the prospects of forming a new UK
organisation for invertebrate conservation remain uncertain. Apart from
the question of funding, it has to be admitted that support for this
initiative seems to be just a little less than wholehearted, judging by the
results of the consultation with the councils of the existing invertebrate
organisations. Many people are in full support, but doubt whether a
“creepy-crawly” conservation society would have much public appeal.
Others have expressed very reasonable reservations about the creation
@l yer another ‘society with consequent costs and its own
administration, even though accepting that a more effective structure is
meeded.

A few people still think that it is sufficient for the various
organisations to pursue conservation in their separate ways, while co-
operating only in the sense that they meet twice-yearly under the
umbrella of the Joint Committee for the Conservation of British
Invertebrates. The arguments for and against this view were set out in
ICN 21.

Although the initiative has received enough support to justify further
efforts, there-is a need for the membership of the invertebrate
organisations to join in the debate, and to this end a second conference
has been arranged at Peterborough in the early autumn. This
conference could prove to be “make or break” for the initiative, and so
we draw readers’ attention to it: + please see the section on future
meetings.

THE NATURAL

2 Invertebrate Conservation News I \
News, Views and General Information

Educational slide pack

The AES and English Nature have jointly funded the production of an
educational slide pack, comprising 48 pictures of British invertebrates
and their habitats. Four major habitat types are represented, woodland,
wetland, grassland and heathland. Together with its commentary notes
by Roger Key of English Nature, the pack can be used for promoting a
general awareness of invertebrates in conservation, and for giving
advice to site managers and wardens.

We are indebted to those members of the AES, English Nature and
JNCC who freely lent their slides for copying. Among the many
hundreds of slides that were considered, a high proportion were of
superb quality, and it was a very hard job to select only 48. We hope
to recoup part of the cost (£3000) through sales, and then perhaps to
publish a supplementary pack (or even a CD-ROM version), to cover
additional habitats including those in the uplands and on the coasts.
Packs are available at £25 each plus p&p, (total £26.20) from Martin
Harvey, 10 Kiln Ride, Upper Basildon, Berkshire RG8 8TA.

Amateur Entomologists’ Society policy on exhibition sales
Following the consultative period mentioned in ICN 22, the AES has
adopted a revised policy on trade in specimens at the annual
exhibition and through its Wants and Exchanges list. The need was to
demonstrate that the AES wishes to facilitate only those forms of
trading which are in the interests of the proper study of invertebrates,
and which are not a threat to their populations in the wild. The new
guidelines seek assurance of bona fide activities on the part of traders,
rather than imposing restrictions which go far beyond the legal
requirements. They are being issued as a policy statement to traders,
which runs as follows:

The Society provides facilities for trade through its Wants and
Exchanges list and its Annual Exhibition. It does so to help
fulfil its overall aim of furthering the study of insects, which
can only be pursued effectively through the observation of
dead and living specimens, with the aid of books and
equipment.

The Society does not believe that trade in invertebrates is
generally detrimental to populations in the wild, but
recognises that such harm is possible where species are

A Number 23 « June 1997

already in serious decline for other reasons, or where they are
being over-exploited. The Society further believes that it is
preferable for traders to obtain their specimens through
captive breeding or bona fide ranching systems rather than
through capture from the wild, aS an assurance that natural
populations and their habitats are not being harmed.

In accordance with this policy, the Society’s rules for trade
at its annual exhibition and through its Wants and Exchanges
list are as follows:

1. Species that are protected under all the provisions of
schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) or for
which there is a total ban on international trade under CITES
may not be offered for sale.

2. Species that are listed in Schedule 5 of the above Act as
protected from trading, except by licence, may not be
offered for sale unless the licence number is provided by
prior application to the appropriate officer of the Society; /.e.

the Exhibitions and Meetings Secretary or the Wants and

Exchanges Editor. At the annual exhibition, the licence
number must be prominently displayed on the trader’s
stand.

3. There is no restriction on trade in species not included in
categories 1 and 2 above. Traders are, however, requested
to provide their customers with information on the origins of
all live or dead specimens on sale. The Society suggests
that this information should be based on the following
categories:

(a) Captive bred, from self-sustaining stock.

(b) Reared from wild-caught immature stages,
including gravid females.

(Cc) Wild-caught (in whatever stage is offered for sale).
7 (d) Bred from a bona-fide ranching scheme.

(e) Specimens from old collections.

4 Invertebrate Conservation News (s .)

Traders must note that, although this information is
requested, rather than required, further details must be
provided if the specimens are stated to be derived from
categories (d) or (e). These details are as follows:

Category (d) —the address of the ranch or ranching
agency

Category (e) — the origin of the collection and the year
in which the specimen was collected.

A new organisation for invertebrate conservation?

In ICN 21 we commented on the revived interest in the possible
establishment of a new UK organisation to promote invertebrate
conservation. Since then, there has been a lot of work behind the scenes,
investigating the feasibility of several options, ranging from the launch of
a full-blown society to the establishment of a non-membership trust.

The member-organisations of the Joint Committee for tine
Conservation of British Invertebrates (CCBD were asked for their
views, and this took a while owing to the timing of their various
Council or Committee meetings. There was a majority in favour of
forming some sort of new structure, though not necessarily a new
society. The lack of unanimity in this matter was perhaps surprising, in
view of the difficulties that we have in trying to obtain for invertebrates
a littke more of the conservation status that they deserve. Many years
ago, we tried to pursue the alternative option of co-ordinating the work
of the existing invertebrate societies under the JCCBI umbrella, but this
did not work, as explained in JCN 21.

The need for more effective organisation is exemplified when we
consider how difficult it is to communicate effectively with the makers
of national and international conservation policies. Some of these
policies apply to invertebrates (i.e. the great majority of the world’s
fauna), but they are based mainly on the needs of vertebrates and
plants. An example of the resulting deficiencies is the inadequacy of the
ecological criteria for selecting Special Areas of Conservation. There is
also a failure to take account of the dynamics of invertebrate
populations and of the difficulties in surveying them. This failure is now
causing problems over the proposed criteria for international Red Data
Book listings ;Equally,, in the absence of proper advice. irom
invertebrate zoologists, some countries have misguidedly enacted
draconian and useless laws against the collecting of invertebrates, while
doing little or nothing to protect their habitats.

Le 4 ,
DENN Number 23 » June 1997 5

Now that the overall view in favour of a new structure has been
confirmed, the JCCBI is continuing to assess, via a steering group,
various options which would be both financially viable and acceptable
to the existing invertebrate organisations. There was a reasonable hope
of securing part-funding through a major wildlife charity, but this hope
has receded, at least for the time being. If any progress is made, it will
be reported in JCN. Meanwhile, the steering group will continue to
explore possibilities for funding, and to seek assistance from people
Mmitiieie expertise and busimess acumen needed to establish a
successful organisation. Anyone who can offer such expertise is invited
to offer his or her assistance: please write to Alan Stubbs, 181
Broadway, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE1 1UA.

In view of the need to open up the discussion to the membership of
the societies, as well as to their elected representatives, a second
“Peterborough conference” has been arranged for 27th.September 1997
(see the section on future meetings).

News from AES Area Representatives
Compiled by the AES Habitat Conservation Officer, Martin Harvey

We now have thirteen Area Reps in the British Isles, and would very
much like to hear from anyone who would like to become a Rep for
one of the counties or regions not already covered (see a recent issue
of ICN for the list of Reps). The existing Reps would in turn like to hear
from members with offers of help in recording and conservation.

Cleveland: Jan Mascall, AES Area Conservation Rep for Cleveland would
like to receive any reports on numbers and species of fritillaries and
hawk moths in the Cleveland area and the North York Moors. Any
sightings or details of colonies would be welcome so that he can get a
picture of the numbers present. Please contact Ian at 18 Alberta House,
Highfield Road, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS4 2NP. Tel: 01642 250984.

The Wildlife Trusts: The AES Area Reps work largely in conjunction
with their local Wildlife Trusts, and it is therefore important that we
should maintain and improve our central links with the Trusts’ umbrella
organisation. The Wildlife Trusts conference in 1996 included a well-
received presentation on invertebrate conservation, which highlighted
some of the special aspects of our work which are often under-
appreciated. The need not to deter potential invertebrate recorders by
inappropriate restrictions was one of the points raised by Stephen Miles,
who was speaking on behalf of the British Entomological and Natural
History Society (BENHS). Martin Harvey spoke on behalf of the AES.

. a
ex
6 Invertebrate Conservation News “ss

Sites and Species of Interest

Rescue mission for rare ant in Devon

The ant Formica exsecta is a Red Data Book species in the UK, with a
very restricted distribution, mainly in the Bovey Basin in Devon and in
a few Scottish sites in the Aviemore and Rannoch areas. It appears to
be common on the European mainland, but it is confused there with
- other Formica species. Unfortunately, the F. exsecta nests,at one of the
Devon sites have become threatened by unofficial motorcycle
scrambling, even though the site has SSSI status. A rescue project has
been mounted, involving the translocation of seven ant mounds to the
grounds of Paignton Zoo under the supervision of Zoo Director and
entomologist David Stradling.

The status of the ant at its other Devon site is meanwhile being
monitored, and 86 mounds have been counted. There is, however,
some difficulty in counting its colonies because one colony can consist
of a number of apparently separate mounds, as shown by means of a
dye tracer test. Another complication is that F. exsecta is not a primary
nest builder; it colonises nests that have been initiated by F. fusca. Yet
another related species, F. rufa, can destroy the nests and this is one of
the main threats to the survival of F. exsecta, the other problem being
scrub encroachment. In Scotland, surveys by David Phillips with
Scottish Natural Heritage have revealed a total of 95 mounds.

Selar Grasslands, Glamorgan
A report by Neil Jones

The Selar Grasslands Site of Special Scientific Interest was the first in
the UK to be totally obliterated as a result of a planning decision.
Situated in the Neath Valley in Glamorgan in the village of Cwmgwrach,
it was a unique area of high quality traditional hay meadows and wet
grasslands. Naturally, such high quality grassland was rich in
invertebrates and this site held a colony of the internationally
recognised threatened species, the Marsh fritillary Eurodryas aurinia,
until a mining company, Celtic Energy, cleared the land.

The. decision to grant the planning: permission was a very
controversial one. West Glamorgan County Council has come in for
heavy criticism over the manner of its handling of the planning
application. The council’s own environment quality department
recommended that the application be refused because of the SSSI’s high
quality and quoted a Countryside Council for Wales source as saying

SL Number 23 * June 1997 7

baat the Sool was ~.-./). of such character and integrity as to be
considered for Nature Conservation Review site status”. (Such status is
normally associated with National Nature Reserves.). The contents of
this report were curiously not passed to the councillors when the
decision to grant planning permission was finally made on 24th January
1994.

ihe application had been strenuously opposed: by many
conservation organisations such as WWF, Butterfly Conservation and
Friends of the Earth and it was widely expected that such an important
decision would necessitate the calling of a Public Enquiry. However,
the then Welsh Secretary, John Redwood, refused all requests to call
one.

The management of the site prior to approval of the planning
application for mining left much to be desired. The colony of the rare
butterflies had been damaged by ruthless overgrazing, leading to a
population crash. My own pleas to the Countryside Council for Wales
on this matter had been ignored. A suspicious pattern of management is
now beginning to emerge over Marsh fritillary sites threatened by
mmuns Operations, this being one of three such sites where
unnecessary damage to the habitat has occurred.

The furore gradually died down until the Spring Bank holiday of
1995 when a band of protesters set up camp in the trees surrounding
the meadows. Their protest led to an immediate cessation in the work
and a large amount of media interest. BBC Wales TV ran the story as
the lead news item of a week calling it “The Battle of the Butterflies”. A
rally on the streets of Cwmgwrach attracted most of the village in
EM@Port Of the protesters, and many people carried “Save the
Butterflies” posters. At the time, an attempt at translocation was under
way, with Celtic Energy moving turf from the site to a spot nearby. This
was accompanied by a process of removing stock of the Marsh fritillary
to a separate site. I visited the site with a group representing a range of
conservation organisations and was fortunate to meet the consultant
who was moving the colonies. His naive admission that he believed
that the translocation would not work received widespread publicity in
the local press. There was further media attention in early 1996, when
the eventual eviction of the protesters from the site allowed the remains
of the SSSI to be totally obliterated.

One interesting incident attracted further media publicity. Some of
the translocated turves came from a rare type of mire grassland called
NCV M24 under the national classification of vegetation. This is
distinguished from a commoner type, M25, by the presence amongst

8 Invertebrate Conservation News as \.

the sward of the Meadow thistle, Cirsium dissectum. The turf had cost
hundreds of thousands of pounds to move. During the summer of 1996
Celtic Energy employed people to remove the tree saplings which were
growing in the sward. The Meadow thistles were pulled up and left
along the edge of the path, instantly degrading the classification of the
rare grasslands.

The future of the translocated turves and the butterfly are very much
in doubt. Only a small part of the grassland sward was moved from the
SSSI and it has been divided into three sections. The original hydrology
of the site which influenced its grassland vegetation cannot be
replicated. The butterfly’s new home is far from ideal. There is very
little of the larval foodplant, Devil’s-bit scabious, Succisa pratensis.
Butterfly Conservation’s Paul Kirkland, appearing on Channel 4
television, described the operation as a “tarce”. The only published
research indicates that the Marsh fritillary does not translocate well. Out
of 56 documented introductions only two lasted more than ten years
and these have both subsequently died out.

Dung beetle project in Gloucestershire

A report on the Gloucestershire Invertebrate Group’s survey of dung-
associated scarab beetles is one of several very interesting items in the
group’s spring 1997 newsletter. These beetles and other dung-feeding
invertebrates are widely threatened by the lethal or sublethal effects of
avermectins in the dung, which are used as anti-worm drugs for
livestock. Keith Alexander states that Gloucestershire’s scarab fauna
appears to have declined dramatically in recent decades, and he hopes
that the project will reveal the present status of the dung-associated
species.

The findings so far suggest that the degree of “improvement” of
pastures may be the main factor in determining the diversity of the
scarab fauna. The two most heavily fertilised sites produced no scarabs
at all, even though one of them was a permanent pasture. The effect of
avermectins was not clear, as their use had been discontinued on these
sites. Two species were found at each of two other permanent pastures,
which were more lightly fertilised. The best results all came from
unimproved pastures: Daneway Banks, Selsey Common (see future
field meetings in this ICN), Snows Farm, Rodborough Common and
Lower Woods Wickwar, each of which held four to five species. These
included rarities such as Aphodius ictericus, A. borealis, A. luridus and
Onthophagus joannae.

Ss:
(ss Number 23 « June 1997 9

Brown hairstreak survey in Pembrokeshire

This butterfly (7hecla betulae) has been recorded from rather few sites
in Pembrokeshire in recent years, but the county Wildlife Trust reports
that quite a large colony exists at the West Williamston Nature Reserve.
There are also apparently suitable habitats in other areas, and the Trust
has been asking for volunteers to conduct surveys for the eggs, which
are characteristically laid at the base of the new twigs. Unfortunately,
the twigs are removed by hedge-cutting, and for this reason Butterfly
Conservation is mounting a national campaign to persuade farmers to
cut their hedges less frequently (Butterfly Conservation News,
Autumn/WInter 1996). Apart from south-west Wales, the main
strongholds of the species are in the Western Weald of England, North
Devon and West Somerset.

Research Notes

by Owen Lewis

Acid rain: effects of liming on invertebrates

Rivers and lakes in many parts of Europe have become increasingly
acidic as a consequence of man-made sulphur and nitrogen oxide
emissions, which are washed down as “acid rain”. Although treating this
problem at source — by reducing emissions — is the best way to solve
the problem, one way to ameliorate damage that has already occurred
is to reduce acidity by treating river sources with lime. This is already
being undertaken in Scandinavia, and (on an experimental basis) in the
UK. Liming is thought to benefit salmon and trout, but the effects on
invertebrates are less well known.

Research workers from the University of Wales (Cardiff), $.T. Buckton
and $.J. Ormerod (Biological Conservation 79: 43-57), have been
investigating the effects of liming on the invertebrates of mires in
upland Wales. They sampled invertebrates using pitfall traps in three
mires that had been limed five or six years previously, and from ten
similar but unlimed mires. Overall, there was little apparent difference

between the two habitats in terms of the diversity of invertebrates.

However, particular invertebrate groups appeared to respond differently
to liming. Among the beetles, carabids were significantly less abundant
at limed sites, but members of the families Hydrophilidae and Ptiliidae
were significantly more abundant. Of the other insects captured,
Veliidae (Heteroptera) were significantly more abundant on limed

@emires. Among the spiders, members of the Linyphiidae and

Loong
eS

—~L
by
10 Invertebrate Conservation News ac )

Tetragnathidae were more abundant at limed sites, but species from the
Lycosidae were less abundant.

Biodiversity on reclamation sites: indicator species

A paper by K.D. Holl of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University (journal of Applied Ecology 33: 225-236) describes
investigating the populations of butterflies and diurnal moths on land
reclaimed after opencast coal mining in Virginia, USA. The areas
studied were surrounded by deciduous forests, and had been reclaimed
at various times over a period of 30 years. This gave an opportunity to
investigate the response to reclamation in the relatively long term,
rather than just the initial stages of recolonisation, and also to follow
trends in butterfly and moth species richness as plant succession
proceeded.

During the survey 52 butterfly species and 99 moth species were
recorded during the survey, which used transect counts. The fauna of
late-successional sites (mining ceased 25-30 years ago) was similar to
that of the surrounding undisturbed deciduous forests, although a few
of the less common species were found only in the forest. Interestingly,
while the number of diurnal moth species recorded in a site increased
with time since reclamation, the number of butterfly species decreased.
This reinforces the view that the widespread use of butterflies as
environmental indicator species is often inappropriate.

Past Meetings

The 1996 Peterborough Conference

We did not report in detail on the well-attended and very stimulating
conference that was held at Peterborough in February 1996, as plans
were afoot to publish the proceedings. We are now glad to announce
that this has been done, under the editorship of Steve Brooks on behalf
of the Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates. The
title is Unity of Purpose jor Invertebrate Conservation: Maintaining the
biodiversity of British Invertebrates, and the main contributions are as
follows:

@ A.E. Stubbs — (from a talk by Graham Wynne of RSPB) The Bio-
diversity Action Plan and Biodiversity Challenge

@ S.G. Ball — Action for species

@ K. Porter — Maintaining the biodiversity of British invertebrates:
action for habitats

TR
hes Number 23 « June 1997 11

e@ K.N. Alexander & C. Studholme — County co-operation — a model in
Gloucestershire

e S. Hawkswell — Working with the Wildlife Trusts
e@ AE. Stubbs — Opportunities for national invertebrate societies

@ General discussion — Co-ordination of response to biodiversity action
plan/Recording/Communication/Biodiversity/A national invertebrate
society/Land management/Closing remarks (Prof. M.G. Morris).

The proceedings have been distributed to those who attended the
meeting, through the financial support that was kindly provided by
English Nature. The /CN Editor is willing to make photocopies for other
ICN readers who would like copies These would be provided at cost,
Gncluding postage) on receipt of a cheque for 42.50 per copy, made
out to the Amateur Entomologists’ Society. Non-UK members must add
the equivalent of £5.50 per cheque to cover bank charges, or pay by
international Postal Giro, Eurocheque or cheque in & Sterling drawn on
a London bank.

Future Meetings

AES conservation field meeting (Second announcement)

Geoff Trevis, AES Area Rep for Worcestershire and Martin Harvey,
Habitat Conservation Officer, will be leading a field meeting on 2nd
mueust at the Devils Spittleful reserve, near Kidderminster,
Worcestershire. The meeting starts at 10.30am and we will also be
running moth-traps in the evening, meeting at 8pm. Devil’s Spittleful is
a nature reserve for the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, and is one of the
few remaining areas of heathland in the country. A number of
_ heathland invertebrates have been recorded from the site, and we hope
to add significantly to knowledge of the invertebrate interest of the site

ft. during this meeting. Geoff Trevis is involved with promoting

invertebrate recording in Worcestershire, and is keen to make contact
with entomologists who record in the county. This meeting is joint with
the BENHS. Please contact one of the leaders in advance of you wish to
attend, and to find out the exact meeting point. Geoff Trevis (01905
ia _ 774952) or Martin Harvey (01491 671889).

he
i a
12 Invertebrate Conservation News “is

Gloucestershire Invertebrate Group field meetings

Keith Alexander has kindly supplied details of the 1997 meetings of this
group of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust. Any non-member of the
group who would like to attend a meeting should first contact Keith at
14 Partridge Way, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 1BQ (Tel: 01285
651171). Four field meetings are timed to take place after this issue of
ICN is due to appear; they are as follows:

e Saturday 12th July at Ban y Gor wood and East Wood/Wollaston
Lime Coppice — semi-natural ancient woodland and reputedly some
limestone pavement. Meet 10.30am at Lancaut Reserve parking area,
north of Wintour’s Leap (ST541966). Leader Keith Alexander (01285

651171).

e Sunday 10th August at Selsey Common and Lower Lutheridge Farm —
an under-recorded Cotswold site, recommended for dung beetles
and graylings. Meet 10.30am at south-west end of the Common,
approx. SO825024. Leader Tony Taylor (Gloucester 728734).

e Saturday 13th September at Lightmoor Ponds and Laymoor Quagg,
Forest of Dean — wetland sites; monitoring of rare Donacia beetles.
Meet 10.30am at $O0654148, following road into industrial estate.
Leader Keith Alexander (01285 651171).

e@ Sunday 13th October at Robinswood Hill Country Park — an area
near the Gloucestershire Trust HQ, with big beech trees, hawthorn
scrub, neutral meadow and semi-improved grasslands. Meet in main
car park outside Dulverton Building (SO838157), off Reservoir Road,
signpcsted off Tuffley Roundabout. Leader Keith Alexander (01285
651171). ;

The 1997 Peterborough Conference

Date: Saturday 27th September 1997
Time: 10.00am (ends c. 5.40pm)
Place: Central Library, Broadway, Peterborough

Admission: Free, but probably by ticket only

Following the highly successful Peterborough conference of February
1996, and the subsequent moves towards a new UK invertebrate
conservation structure, some important issues need to be discusse
within a wide forum. A conference is therefore being held at the sam

jes
nes Number 23 « June 1997 13

venue, with the support of the AES, The British Entomological and
Natural History Society and English Nature. The provisional programme
includes generous discussion time, as well as talks on the following
topics:

The core message

Rivers and streams

Urban and post-industrial wasteland

Heathland |

Role of conservation committees within societies

Emergence of Butterfly Conservation as a professional organisation

The invertebrate gulf in the conservation movement

Is an invertebrate conservation society necessary?

It is hoped that the societies will distribute programmes and tickets to
individual interested members. Individuals who do not hear from their
societies can send enquiries to the following address, providing a large
stamped addressed envelope accompanies every such enquiry:

Mr A.E. Stubbs, 181 Broadway, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE1 1UA.

Corrigendum

The Editor apologises for the following error in ICN 22 — In lan
Mascall’s report from Cleveland, the comma should have been named
as Polygonia c-album; not Hesperia comma!

EditGrial <...s5.6ces5 8 Seg era ee ar 1

News, Views and General Information

Educational slide pack Crc.. 2 ac Ik. eth oc atc 2

AES policy-on-exhibtiton: Sales” 2. -...c5.....cacc ee 2

A new organisation for invertebrate COMSETVAtION? .........cccc..cececsencceeeteeensnteree ss +
News from AES Area Representatives

Glevelaind <2 22 alc ca co Rae ahve se cece us Foret 5

The Wildlife Trusts: s.....28 2k ok ee eee 5)
Sites and Species of Interest

Rescue: mission for rare “ant in-Wevon (220. ee 6

Selar<Grasslands, Glamorgan ..6)...052. 6.4.03. 6a. ee 6

Dung beetle project in Gloucestershire: <.....5.2 te 8

Brown hairstreak survey: in. Pembrokeshire 2..i5..2.. tte ee 9
Research Notes

Acid rain: effects of liming on invertebrates t= 2 ae te 9

Biodiversity on reclamation sites: indicator SpeCieS ..............:s. sees 10
Past Meetings Fy

The 1996 Peterborough Gontese no. caso oan sean cne cena 10
Future Meetings :

AES conservation field meeting ...g.4.0..0.0...55 an ust eerie ee 11

Gloucestershire Invertebrat l 12

The 1997 Peterbor Confer oe ee CR 12
COrri Genuine. s. xl ec econ cede nn cece og le ed ee 13

NOTICE

It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this
Journal are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants
offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss,
embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1997. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 20th June 1997 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from PO Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

== )ctober 1997
Editor David Lonsdale

—_

on

Invertebrate
Conservati

A publication of The Amateur Entomologists' Society

ISSN 1356

Es. bbe

: Entomo log,

@
e

$
a af
v
=
=

Founded 1935
Where to write
For all JCN business, please write to:
AES
P.O. Box 8774
London

SW7 5ZG
Telephone: (0976) 828142

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Martin Harvey
Neil Jones
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann

Stephen Miles

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Photo: Ian MacFayden

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION
NEWS

No. 24, October 1997

Editorial

A number of items in this issue of JCN have an aquatic flavour. The
research note on the grasshopper Bryodema tuberculata in central
Europe highlights the widespread loss of habitats that occur in naturally
flowing rivers. To quote Alan Stubbs from the AES book Habitat
Conservation for Insects (1991), “. . . over wide tracts of lowland Britain
man has tampered with rivers and, in some districts, has made them
into little more than large gutters”. Unfortunately, too few people have
yet taken note of the excellent advice that Alan gives in that book,
judging by his revelation in ICN of a campaign to tame a river to the
detriment of wildlife; i.e. the removal of fallen dead wood from the
River Wye and its tributaries in England and Wales.

Another aquatic story is provided by the item on Phytophthora
disease of alder, an ecologically very valuable tree species. This serious
disease is occurring mainly along river banks, not only because that is
where many of our lowland alders grow, but also because the river
water provides a means of dispersal of the causal fungus. The JCN
article below outlines the ecological importance of alder in relation to
the possible threat to its populations.

As the creator of many a garden pond knows, there are some aquatic
invertebrates that are good at finding their way to new habitats, and for
_ this reason the temporary loss of habitat at a certain proportion of sites
is not always a cause for gloom and doom. Nevertheless, some species
are less well endowed with powers of dispersal, as seems to be the
case with the riverine island-dwelling grasshopper featured in the JCN
research note. It is therefore important that conservation work such as
pond clearance is done in stages, so that invertebrates and other
animals have a chance to disperse from undisturbed areas of mud and

2 Invertebrate Conservation News i A

vegetation to the recently cleared zones. Unfortunately, this sensitive
approach is very hard to sustain when money is made available on the
condition that it should all be spent within one financial year. This
problem of letting accountants occupy the driving seat plagues a wide
range of projects; not just watery ones!

The news that English Nature (EN) has launched a new agenda for
the management of freshwater resources is encouraging, but it is
acknowledged by EN that the situation in England is very difficult to
tackle, even as far as existing Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
are concerned. As the EN agenda gives priority to SSSIs and the top-
grade “Special Areas of Conservation” (see again Alan Stubbs’ report on
the River Wye!), it remains to be seen whether there is any cause for
optimism about the status of wetlands and watercourses in the wider
countryside.

News, Views and General Information

Invertebrates and Forest Management
by Anna Pike

Jari Niemelae (Conservation Biology 1997, 11(3), 601-610) has recently
reviewed existing knowledge of the effects of forestry on invertebrates, —
mainly within boreal forest (the coniferous forest of northern parts of
the northern hemisphere). He focuses on examples from Scandinavia
but suggests that similar patterns may occur in other boreal forests.
Niemelae describes how invertebrates are affected by logging at three
ecological scales: the small scale (a few square metres); the local scale
(a forest stand); and the biogeographical scale (thousands of square
kilometres).

At the small scale, logging particularly affects species associated with
natural old-growth areas, which include patches of swamp-forest and
dead or decaying trees or large deciduous trees amongst the conifers.
For example, aspens (Populus tremula) host a wide range of
invertebrates. Aspen leaf litter is favoured over pine needle litter by
many invertebrates, such as carabid beetles and land snails. However,
mature aspen trees have been deliberately removed from some forests,
as they are considered of little economic value and are the alternate
host for a pine rust fungus. The decrease in numbers of large aspen
trees in old managed forests has probably contributed to the decline of
several invertebrate species.

Number 24 ¢ October 1997 3

At the local level of a forest stand, invertebrate species richness may
actually increase with logging, despite the loss of specialist species. This
is because forest generalists Ginvertebrates that can adapt to several
habitat types) persist, while species preferring open habitats move into
the area. However, the practice of controlling forest fires detrimentally
affects species that require burned substrate.

At the biogeographical scale, logging tends to make forest habitats
more homogeneous and leads to the decline and loss of sensitive
species. A striking example is provided by the difference between an
intensively managed forest system in Finland and a virtually untouched
forest across the border in Russia just a few tens of kilometres away.
The insect diversity of the unmanaged Russian forest was higher.
Furthermore, 15 species of insect “Red-listed” in Finland were found in
the Russian forest, compared to only one such species in Finland.

Niemalae suggests three ways of reconciling the conservation of
invertebrate diversity in boreal forests with commercial forestry. First,
he suggests that areas of undisturbed old-growth forest should be set
side tO Sustain Specialist species and to. act. as reservoirs for
recolonisation. Secondly, ecologically sound methods of cultivating and
harvesting conifer trees should be developed. Thirdly, provided that a
reservoir of invertebrate colonists is available, areas of habitat should be
restored, with provision for natural regeneration through fire, so as to
allow the full diversity of invertebrates to re-colonise these areas.

Niemalae concludes that “ecological knowledge is imperative when
modifying present harvesting methods to minimise their harmful effects
on biological diversity” and suggests that improved collaboration
between scientists and forest managers is necessary so that the
requirements of conservation and timber harvesting can be considered
together.

“Lowland Heath Management Plan” for the UK

Heathland develops on infertile soils, and yet provides some of the
richest invertebrate habitats in the UK. Heathlands do not produce

~ much in the way of biomass that can be intensively and unselectively

cropped by humans. Thus, the share of biological productivity that is
left for wildlife is better on heathland than on arable land or lowland
grassland, even though this productivity is rather low due to the soil
conditions. Also, the dry warm conditions of lowland heaths, combined
with local boggy habitats, provide a good environment for many

: invertebrates.

4 Invertebrate Conservation News (ss

The problem is, of course, that large tracts of economically
unproductive land in an overcrowded country tend to be regarded as a
wasted resource. Thus, for many decades, heathlands have been
relentlessly and extensively destroyed and fragmented through a variety
of activities. These have included residential and industrial
development, mineral extraction, road building and afforestation. Areas
of heathland that remain are often subject to ecologically damaging
types of management, such as the drainage of boggy areas.

Although some areas of British heathland have been replaced by
conifer plantations, a total area of 15,000 ha of lowland heath still exists
within the estate of Forest Enterprise (FE), the commercial arm of the
British Forestry Commission. This represents about 25 per cent of
Britain’s lowland heath, but is concentrated mainly in the New Forest in
Hampshire, where it covers 13.390 ha. The FE recognises the need to
protect its remaining heathland habitats and to reverse some of the
effects of the fragmentation from which they have suffered in the past.
Accordingly, it has launched the “Lowland Heath Management Plan” in
liaison with the Forestry Authority and English Nature, and with the
agreement of other organisations such as RSPB, the Sonny Wildlife
Trusts and Local Authorities.

The main commitment under the plan is for the FE to sustain all its
existing heathlands through appropriate management, including the
control of invasion by birch, pine, rhododendron and other non-
heathland vegetation. This is currently done through the controlled
burning of heather and gorse, and the fencing of grazing areas to
encourage regeneration of the heathland flora. However, such methods
need to be used sensitively, so that a good habitat mosaic is maintained
and that trees and scrub are not destroyed so indiscriminately that their
locally beneficial effects as foodplants and shelter would be lost.

The plan makes some provision for restoring heathland, as well as
protecting the existing areas. Thus, the Forestry Commission now has a
commitment to create at least 760 hectares of new heathland, converted
from forest. An area of 87 ha has already been restored at Sherwood
Forest, with plans for a further 41 hectares to follow. The plan will
contribute over ten per cent towards the national Biodiversity Action
Plan restoration target of 6,000 hectares, and it is hoped that additional
areas Of heathland can be created within future forest design plans. The
plan also includes recovery programmes for scarce and endangered
species, including the Dorset Heath in Purbeck, creation of sand
patches for egg laying by Sand Lizards and a continuing programme for
their re-introduction to the New Forest.

SN Number 24 +° October 1997 5

Phytophthora root disease of alder

Species of alder (Alnus) are ecologically important in many parts of
Europe, representing one of the main components of riparian forests,
carr and the birch-alder-hazel forests of the sub-boreal regions. As a
foodplant for British invertebrates, the native alder (A. glutinosa) is
listed by Kennedy & Southwood (J. Anim. Ecol. 1984, 53. 455-478) as
supporting 141 insect and mite species, being outranked only by the
three high-scoring genera of willows, oaks and birches.

Some invertebrate species depend mainly on alder, one example
being the Alder leaf beetle Agelastica alni, an attractive bluish species
which may now be extinct in Britain. Another example is the weevil
Anoplus roboris. However, other foodplants can support most of the
invertebrates that feed on alder, including leaf beetles such as
Chrysomela aenea, the Alder moth Acronicta alni and the Alder kitten
Furcula bicuspis. Nevertheless, at some sites, alder is the only tree
species suited to the local conditions, and is then vitally important for a
wide range of invertebrate species.

Around 1993, deaths among riparian alders in England were reported
and bark samples were sent to the Forest Commission’s Alice Holt
Research Station. The cause was found to be a fungus in the genus
Phytophthora, resembling a species (P. cambivora) that kills roots and
basal bark in various tree species other than alder, but differing from P.
cambivora in some details. Fungi in this genus infect their host plants
by means of motile water-borne spores which are attracted to the
surfaces of roots and other plant organs. Further investigations have
indicated that the fungus is probably a hybrid between Phytophthora
species, and that it occurs over a wide area of Great Britain. The same
fungus has also been found in several counties on the European
continent.

The newly recognised “Phytophthora root disease of alder” is clearly
of concern for invertebrate conservationists, and it is important to know
Whether it is likely to wipe out entire populations of alder. The
potential seems to be quite serious, as there are several riparian
localities — for example along the River Lugg in the Welsh borders and
on parts of the River Windrush in Oxfordshire — where over half of the
alders are either showing signs of the disease (small, spare, yellowish
leaves and/or basal stem exudations) or have died. However, the
incidence of the disease within Britain as a whole is much lower, and
the year-to-year increase in the proportion of trees showing overt
symptoms is so far quite small. The widespread occurrence of the

6 Invertebrate Conservation News

causal fungus, coupled with the apparently slow rate of spread
between trees, indicates that it may have been present in Britain for
several decades but without causing enough disease to be noticed
until the early 1990s. Indeed, recent findings indicate that infected
trees can survive for several years without showing obvious
symptoms, and that some may remain in good overall condition
indefinitely.

Research into the disease is continuing at Alice Holt Research
Station, with part funding from the Environment Agency (the
successor to the former National Rivers Authority). Members of the
public are being invited to contact local offices of the Agency or of
the Forestry Commission with details of any suspected outbreaks of
the disease. Reports from streams and small rivers (ess than eight
metres wide) may be of particular value, as previous surveys have
concentrated on the larger rivers.

Educational slide pack

Copies of the English Nature/AES slide packs are still available. As
mentioned in JCN 23, the 48 slides show a selection of species and
habitat photos from grassland, heathland, woodland and wetland, plus
accompanying text by Dr Roger Key. They provide a good basis for
anyone who wants to give slide shows and courses on a range of
invertebrate topics, especially those relating to conservation. For the
less vociferous, they are a useful resource for private study and can
be used in conjunction with the AES book Habitat Conservation for
Insects (which is still available from AES Publications, c/o the AES PO
Box). Orders for the slide packs should be sent direct to: Martin
Harvey, 10 Kiln Ride, Upper Basildon, Berkshire RG8 8TA, together
with payment made out to “Amateur Entomologists’ Society”. The total
cost is 427, including &2 p&p (not £1.20 p&p as stated in JC’N 23).

English Nature’s agenda for freshwater resources

The May 1997 issue of the English Nature magazine includes a feature
on this new agenda. and promises a future series of articles on
particular freshwater habitats. The two main objectives of the agenda
are as follows:

— to work in partnership with water managers, landowners and users
to ensure that the needs of wildlife are not overlooked.

4 :
Xe! Number 24 ¢ October 1997 7

— to influence the controls, regulations and incentives for agriculture
and industry so that they become more favourable for nature
conservation.

The agenda also identifies eight key threats to be tackled:

— loss of wetland from urban and farming development.
— drainage.

— increased water abstraction.

— pollution, nutrient enrichment and siltation.

— intensive fisheries management (see /CNarticle by Alan Stubbs on
the River Wye).

— river channelisation and other modifications.
— introduction of non-native species, like the American signal crayfish.
— inappropriate recreation and navigation.

In view of the difficulty of trying to reverse these trends in the wider
countryside, the agenda focuses on Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSIs) and the top-grade “Special Areas of Conservation”. However, it
is admitted that, even for river SSSIs, three quarters of sites suffer from
excessive phosphate concentrations.

For those with a special interest in this subject, English Nature is
offering free of charge a booklet entitled Wildlife and fresh water ISBN
1 857 16 260 9 56), available from Telelink, PO Box 100, Fareham,
Hampshire PO14 2SX.

_ News from
AES Area Representatives

New AES Area Conservation Representative

Brian Mitchell has stepped forward as AES Area Rep for Warwickshire.
Brian has been very active in arguing for better protection for good
_ invertebrate sites in his local area, although he has sometimes been
frustrated by a lack of response from local authorities and others. Like
each of our Reps, Brian would be pleased to hear from any other AES
members who might be able to help in promoting recording and
conservation in his area. Brian’s address is: Brian Mitchell, 127 Watling
Street, Grendon, near Atherstone, Warwickshire CV9 2PH. (There will
be a report from the Area Reps, with a full listing of names and
addresses in the next issue of ICN.

ee
~ax
8 Invertebrate Conservation News AM

Sites and Species of Interest

Removal of fallen timber from the River Wye and its tributaries in
England and Wales

by Alan Stubbs

In mid-June I learned that a salmon fishing group had been persuading
landowners to clear all fallen tree trunks and branches from the Wye
and its tributaries, including minor streams where salmon may spawn.
This may seem innocuous, but it could have serious implications for the
invertebrate fauna of rotting wood partially submerged in flowing
water. We know painfully litthe about this fauna, as the habitat is now
very difficult to find in any abundance. It must, however, have been
abundant in the form of log jams in the days when most of our rivers
ran through primeval forests untouched by human intervention and rich
in fallen dead trees, including those felled by beavers. If there was a
large dependable source of dead wood, we can be sure that an
invertebrate fauna was present to utilise the free meal.

It has taken a lot of effort to get the conservation movement to
recognise the special nature of the invertebrate fauna of old trees on
land, but who has ever heard of a campaign for rotting wood in water?

We rarely see much fallen timber in British rivers mainly because it is
generally a scarce resource, but it may seem even more scarce than it
really is because most of the log jams that do exist are probably hidden
from our view on private land. Hence the news that 400 log jams in the
Wye catchment had been cleared by July 1997 prompts considerable
surprise; first that so many log jams were there, and secondly that this
ecological niche has been subjected so unobtrusively to such a drastic
onslaught. :

Everyone in the conservation movement has been caught on the hop
by this problem of timber clearance, perhaps because nothing on such
an unprecedented scale was anticipated. The scale of clearance is very
significant, as the Wye is one of the major rivers of mid-west to south-
east Wales and forms part of the Welsh border with Herefordshire and
with the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire. The main course of the Wye
is being made an SSSI and is almost certainly to be selected as a River
SAC (‘Special Area of Conservation” — a top of the tops category in
European designations). The recent developments are therefore
especially inappropriate, and yet seem to have met with helplessness
on the part of the statutory bodies: the Countryside Council for Wales,
English Nature and the Environment Agency.

th
fs N Number 24 * October 1997 9

The reason why the fishing interests have been taking this action is

that they believe that it will improve salmon stocks. They are anxious to
achieve this in all rivers, and also want to re-establish stocks where the
salmon has been lost through past pollution etc. The Wye philosophy is
quite likely to spread nationwide.

In view of the ecological implications of timber clearance, I have

written to the Minister of State for the Environment, drawing his
attention to the problem and to the need for swift action. With some
modification, the following summary shows the main points that I
placed before the minister.

if

The River Wye is being impoverished during SSSI notification

The Wye is currently going through the process of SSSI notification
and is presumably to become a River SAC. Removal of fallen timber
ought to be listed as a Potentially Damaging Operation under the
terms of the SSSI but the river does not yet have SSSI designation, so
that CCW and English Nature are seemingly helpless in this matter.

. The River Monnow, a top entomological site is not being notified.

Why?

The Monnow, partly on the Welsh/English border, is part of the
Wye catchment. It has been flagged up as a top entomological site
since the early 1980s Gf not before), but the energies of the
erstwhile Nature Conservancy Council were then being devoted to
the re-notification of existing SSSIs in the wake of the 1981 Wildlife
and Countryside Act, rather than to the designation of new ones.
There was then a long dither over river notification policy, and even
after this there was no designation for the Monnow, even though it
is the top UK site for river Diptera (flies) outside Scotland. During
this time, the Monnow has been affected by at least two incidents of
river modification.

The fauna of fallen timber is being eliminated = biodiversity loss.

The fauna of timber in streams has not been well studied, in part
because suitable study sites are difficult to locate (often out of sight
on private land). In lowland Britain the water authorities have
cleared many rivers. However, we have recently discovered that a
Red Data Book endangered species of cranefly, Lipsothrix
nigristigma, depends on this very vulnerable habitat. There are

almost bound to be other ecological specialist species that are

equally endangered. This cranefly occurs on the Severn catchment
in Shropshire and could well be somewhere on the Wye tributaries.

te,

+)
YS.
10 Invertebrate Conservation News SM

It is designated as a “second tranche priority” under the Species Action
Plans, together with a related species, Z. errans, which depends on
similar habitat in Wales, northern England and Scotland.

ee

4. If this concept of salmon management spreads, the biodiversity of
other catchments such as the Severn will be diminished in the same
fashion.

5. Ecological impact is disproportionate to any benefit for salmon.

A small group of people have come up with the notion that salmon
need water free from all obstructions; indeed I gather that even
waterfalls (which may have their own specialised invertebrates) are
being modified to provide easy steps. The benefits to fisheries seem
minor, and indeed highly questionable in view of the fact that
salmon presumably managed well enough when natural forest was
providing a large supply of fallen timber. Salmon fisheries are
affected by various problems of human impact upon rivers, some of
which are intractable. Fallen timber represents a relatively minor
problem, but it is easily cleared away.

6. There has been no consultation; just precipitate action.

7. A small, powerful vested interest is overwhelming biodiversity
objectives.

This is a classic case of biodiversity objectives being overwhelmed —

by a small but powerful interest group. with the response
mechanism of the conservation movement proving too slow to affect
the outcome. It is comparable with the clearance of rainforest where
no attempt is made to record biodiversity beforehand or to develop
a strategy to help reduce losses. An entire ecological component of
an ecosystem is being destroyed for questionable economic motives.
We helplessly watch this sort of thing going on in impoverished
third world countries — cannot we do better in Britain?

Anything that can be done to bring some urgency into resolving this
problem will be welcome.

BBONT species recovery programme for the stag beetle

The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Naturalists’ Trust is
mounting a recovery programme for the Stag beetle, Lucanus cervus,
Britain’s largest native terrestrial insect. As with many deadwood
invertebrates, L. cervus has suffered from excessive tidying up and
fuelwood gathering, but the need of its larvae for large units of dead

th}
wD Number 24 »* October 1997 11

wood has made it particularly vulnerable to such habitat destruction. In
the UK, it is currently being added to Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act, in respect of trading, which is a possible threat for a
species which can be kept as a “pet”.

The BBONT programme, which has funding from the Green Card
Trust, is starting this autumn with an initial survey of the occurrence of
the beetle in the three counties covered by the Trust. It is also hoped
that BBONT volunteers will take part in the national survey of adult
beetles next summer. The Trust’s plan for next year is to start creating
new deadwood habitats.

Glow-worms and rare snails in London

The latest issue of the London Wildlife Trust magazine carries a report
that one of London’s finest colonies of the glow-worm, Lampyris
noctiluca, has been discovered in the Colne Valley. The site is a long-
disused railway embankment neat the Trust’s nature reserve at Denham
Lock Wood, where the dry calcium-rich conditions suuport snail species
which are needed as prey by the larvae of this beetle. In the damp
conditions at the base of the embankment there is also a colony of the
rare wetland snail, Vertigo moulinsiana, which acquired fame during
the Newbury anti-bypass campaign.

This London glow-worm colony was found by astronomer Robin
Scagell, who has developed an interest in the species because it seems
to share a problem with astromers; namely, “light pollution”. It is
widely believed that the evident decline in glow-worm populations is
partly due to disruption of mating behaviour by artifical light.

| Research Notes
Persistence of populations of a rare grasshopper in a changing
environment
by Anna Pike
Besides harming invertebrates through direct habitat damage, humans

can also threaten their populations by influencing the frequency and

severity of “natural” events like floods. This seems to have been the
case for the grasshopper Bryodema tuberculata, which ranges from the
Asian steppes to central Europe, where it becomes rare. Researchers in
Germany have found that most extinctions of B. tuberculata
populations are due to human interference in the natural flooding

regimes of rivers.

ye ‘
SN
12 Invertebrate Conservation News as \

In central Europe B. tuberculata is only found on gravel bar islands
within braided river systems in the northern Alps. Floods are frequent
in this habitat, covering existing gravel bars and creating new ones.
Since B. tuberculata requires open and dry habitats, populations on the
gravel bars go extinct naturally from time to time, either when they are
flooded or when the amount of open ground is reduced by
successional development of the vegetation, which culminates in the
formation of willow thickets. However, the overall population of the
grasshopper can persist as long as these extinctions are balanced by the
colonisation of newly exposed gravel bars along a stretch of river.

Christian Stelter, Michael Reich, Volker Grimm and Christian Wissel
(Journal of Animal Ecology 1997, 66, 508-518) have found that the
frequency of flooding of rivers is the most important factor affecting the
persistence of populations of B. tuberculata. The female grasshoppers
are extremely poor dispersers, so that colonisation of a new habitat is
an uncommon event. If the river floods too frequently, the loss of local
populations exceeds the rate at which new gravel bars can be
colonised. Equally, populations are lost if the floods occur so
infrequently that existing habitat is lost to encroaching vegetation
without being adequately replaced by areas of freshly exposed gravel.
This happens when the damming of rivers prevents flooding. Thus,
human management of river systems has prevented new habitats from
being created for B. tuberculata in the northern Alps, and many
populations have been lost.

Stelter et al. suggest that their research provides a model for
evaluating the impact of man-made and natural changes on a habitat
and for formulating possible measures for the conservation of species
threatened by such changes. They also suggest that B. tuberculata
should be used as a target indicator for species dependent on natural
flood-plain dynamics. Management which allows this grasshopper to
persist may also succeed for other animals and plants in this niche.

Book Review

The Larger Moths of Surrey by Graham A. Collins, (1997). Surrey |
Wildlife Trust 333pp, ISBN 0 9526065 6, hardback, £18.50 net — The |
county of Surrey with its southern location and its varied geology, |
supports more moth species than most other British counties and this |
book should therefore be of interest to entomologists and |
conservationists well beyond the county boundaries. To explain the |
importance of geology as a factor in biodiversity, the introductory pages |

th ;
BAN Number 24 ¢ October 1997 13

include an account by Dr Peter Sutcliff of the geology of Surrey. Also, a
map of the county’s solid geology is superimposed on each of the
individual species distribution maps. Another biodiversity factor is the
range of different types of habitat, which reflect both geology and the
history of land-use. Substantial percentages of the county’s land area
are occupied by deciduous and coniferous woodland, heathland,
grassland, parkland and domestic gardens, although there is very little
wetland.

The main body of the book consists of concise accounts of each of
the larger moth species, including information on voltinism and on
foodplants in the case of more specialised feeders. There are notes on
the types of sites within the county where each species occurs, as well
as a dot-map of its Surrey distribution. The inclusion of species as
genuinely occurring in Surrey was based on rigorous criteria for the
acceptance of records, and this book should therefore prove a reliable
guide.

County guides to insect taxa sometimes seem a little dull for want of
colour illustrations, and it is good to find that this one includes sixteen
colour plates in a centre spread. The photos include species now
extinct in Surrey, examples of the larval forms of various families, adults
of various migrant species and adults of selected species from parkland,
woodland, heathland, wetland, chalk downland, gardens and “South
London”. No doubt, the inclusion of these plates owes something to the
financial support that was provided by three outside organisations: the
British Entomological and Natural History Society, the Corporation of
London and the Surrey branch of Butterfly Conservation.

In addition to the very useful information on the individual species,
the book includes some helpful advice on priorities for conservation,
including the need to avoid inappropriate management based on the
mequirements Of a single species. There are also hints on field
techniques, such as light trapping and sugaring. A review of previous
literature is provided, and attention is drawn to some species whose
populations have greatly increased or declined since the last century.
For the future, the author emphasises the importance of recording and
_ makes a commitment to maintaining the Surrey macro-moth database.

CONTENTS
Edita cise. RR eNO SAUL 2 Sa te ee

News, Views and General information
Invertebrates: and Forest Mamagemiemt..cy.cticcs vecce tance eee eer re
‘Lowland Heath Management Plan uior tlie; WK aes ameter eeceeccne eee aerate
Phytophthora root diseaseiOr alder (i c.tees.cenckecs See coecter nate tere ener ere nner
Educational: slide pack se. i eieec foc sacar oe Sage Cotes ener ae ee Re
English Nature’s\agendatfor freshwater reSOUnCES -.s.as.setceeereateneneteeenetee ore

News from: AES Area Representatives: (55:0 cs.cc a -cone- ce sentee. eee eee

Sites and Species of interest
Removal of fallen timber from the River Wye and its tributaries.....................
BBONT species recovery programme for the stag beetle x... ee
Glow-=worms and tare; snailsim} Wondon ss. c....: 1. aeei eee ere eee

Research Notes
Persistence of populations of a rare grasshopper in a changing

EnvinOnmentar wes. :

Book Review
The Larger Maths:of S

NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood tha
Journal are solely those of the aut

OG OD WV OW WN

11

12

all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this

offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss,

embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1997. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 25th October 1997 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from PO Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

Invertebrate
Conservation
News

Number 25 February 1998

ISSN 1356 1359 Editor David Lonsdale

__ A publication of The Amateur Entomologists' Society

¢9 Cp

Entomo lo
ev"

>
=
of
v
S&S
I=

Founded 1935
Where to write
For all JCN business, please write to:
AES |
P.O. Box 8774

London
SW7 5ZG

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Martin Harvey
Neil Jones
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann

Stephen Miles

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Photo: Nick Holford

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION .
NEWS

No. 25, February 1998

Editorial

In a world less overcrowded by humans, the study of invertebrates in
the field might be relatively free from anxieties and obstacles. The fear
that vulnerable species might be endangered by collectors would have
little basis if their habitats were under less pressure from humans. Also,
access to sites might be relatively easy in a less intensively used
countryside. The reality is of course very different; land is coming
under increasingly intensive use, and field naturalists are often viewed
with suspicion. Nevertheless, access to sites could become less
festmctive im the UK if current campaigns for a “right to roam” on
cultivated land are successful.

Although access io sites is desirable for the individual naturalist and
essential for the recording of survey data, there are circumstances
where it may conflict with conservation management objectives. In
mamicular, certain fragile types of vegetation can be harmed by
trampling, and there are various vertebrates such as nesting birds which
can suffer from disturbance. As far as invertebrates are concerned, it is
very important for naturalists to take care not to damage habitats in the
course of taking specimens. The presence of people on sites may,
however, have positive as well as negative effects, since localised
trampling often helps to maintain a vegetational mosaic, including bare
— ground.

In the particular case of deadwood invertebrates, access may bring
about an indirect problem because of the legal liability that site owners
may incur for injuries caused by hazardous trees. Old trees containing
decaying wood are vital for many localised and rare invertebrates, and
it would be a great shame to remove or interfere with them for fear of
litigation. In some areas, for example near public roads, hazards from

fas
DAW
2 Invertebrate Conservation News (sy

trees needito be assessed and managed wilhimineasonialm Wess
frequented areas, the risk to people is generally very much lower but
the fear of liability cannot be entirely dismissed within the current
vagaries of “case law”.

Clearly, increased access to the countryside could have mixed effects
on invertebrate populations, but naturalists would probably welcome it
from the standpoint of their personal freedom to study wildlife. It can
be argued that such freedom is fundamental and should be restricted
only when it might seriously threaten property or wildlife. Indeed there
are many sites of importance for conservation where careful
management can encourage people voluntarily to stay within zones
where they can do little harm. On some sites, however, there may be
zones where there is justification for restricting access compulsorily, at
least during certain times of year.

Despite the political will for improved access to parts of the UK
countryside, some events of recent years have worked in the opposite
direction. In particular, the sale of many sites formerly owned by the
Forestry Commission has barred people from routes which were
previously open to them on a permissive basis. Indeed, some of these
sites now contain theme parks, which can be entered only if money
changes hands. The morality of charging people for the privilege of
setting foot on land is yet another issue which needs to be addressed,
though perhaps not in JCM

News, Views and General Information

Urban development: greenfield versus brownfield sites

We are all familiar with pressures to develop land so as to meet the
housing demands of an increasing population with ever smaller family
units. In the UK, estimates of a demand for perhaps over five million
new homes within twenty years are creating considerable concern,
especially over the despoliation of the countryside that such an
expansion would entail. In particular, it is feared that large areas of
countryside, so-called “greenfield” sites, would become covered by
bricks and mortar.

Many people believe that, in order to safeguard greenfield sites as
much as possible, every effort should be made to develop “brownfield”
sites in preference. This is an understandable view, but too few people
seem to realise that many sites which have previously been used for
housing or industry have considerable value for wild plants and

(ss Number 25 « February 1998 3

aaials, which may/include rare or local invertebrates. These
“brownfield” sites are often oases of largely unmanaged vegetation
maiuMimewrioan or arable deserts. Ihey frequently contain spoil. or
polluted soil which supports specialised species which would be
out-competed in more fertile conditions. This may be the case, for
eanmiple, invthe old colliery sites in Warwickshire, UK which are
mentioned below in the report from the AES Area Reps.

Brownfield sites often have value for educational and recreational
value as well as for wildlife itself. Many people now well into middle
age remember their introduction to wildlife on the bomb sites that were
widespread in cities after the Second World War. By classifying
Drovmucia sites as derelict’ or ‘vacant’, the authorities may be
downgrading them unjustifiably in some cases. Oases of wildlife in a
Sestaded landscape deserve some degree of protection and
sympathetic management, perhaps more so than land which has been
used for the most intensive forms of agriculture.

Eco-friendly aphid control

All invertebrate conservationists know about the environmental value of
using predators to control aphids, in preference to toxic chemicals. We
have often reported on methods for the release or augmentation of
predators such as lacewing larvae in agricultural systems, but it is now
interesting to see that a company in Kent, UK, is offering for sale a
“lacewing chamber” for use in gardens. The chamber is pheromone-
impregnated to attract hibernating adult lacewings and provides them
with shelter which, it is claimed, will increase their overwintering
survival from 5% to more than 90%.

“Butterflies for the New Millennium”

“Butterflies for the New Millennium” is a UK survey project which was
launched by Butterfly Conservation and the Biological Records Centre
in 1995. There have been previous studies of butterfly distribution in
the UK, but this project is to be the largest and most comprehensive

_ yet. By the time that its 1997/98 Winter Newsletter appeared, over

300 000 records had already been sent in.

As with all distribution survey schemes, there is of course some
tendency to map the distribution of observers as well as that of species.
An analysis published by the organisers shows that coverage is good
over much of southern England, but fades away to the north and west
of Britain. There is a also a provisional “league table” of species, based

re
ENR
4 Invertebrate Conservation News ROY

on the number of 10 km squares within each species was recorded
during 1995 and 1996. This ranges from the Lulworth skipper in four
squares to the Small tortoiseshell in 1535 squares. The Large blue,
which has been re-introduced to parts of south-west England, is not
included in the table.

Those interested in the scheme can contact fim: Asher of tie
co-ordinating network by e-mail butterflynet@btinternet.com or by
telephone on 01865 391727 after working hours and at weekends. The
contact at the BRC is Nick Greatorex-Davies, whose e-mail address is
n.greatorex-davies@ite.ac.uk. In the daytime he can be telephoned on
01487 773381.

English Nature research on invertebrates

Projects in EN’s research programme for 1997/98 include studies on
quite a long list of invertebrates. Among these, certain endangered
species are the subject of autecological research which is intended to

provide the data needed to help arrest their decline at their remaining

UK locations and to support restoration programmes within their former
UK ranges. These are as follows:

Barberry carpet moth (Pareulype berberata); Black-veined moth (Siona

lineata); Reddish buff moth (Ascometia caliginosa); Field cricket -

(Gryllus campestris), New Forest cicada (Cicadetta montana), Wartbiter
cricket (Decticus verrucivorus), Mole cricket (Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa);
Large marsh grasshopper Stethophyma grossum and Black-backed
meadow ant Formica pratensis.

In addition, other species being studied include the following:

— Marsh Fritillary butterfly, Eurodryas aurinia — status on the North
Berkshire Downs

— Ladybird spider, Eresus niger - condition of existing and potential
release sites | :

— Little whirlpool ramshorn snail, Anisus vorticulus — distribution and
habitat requirements

— Southern damselfly, Coenagrion mercuriale — detailed status on
SACs and habitat requirements

— Glutinous snail, Myxas glutinosa — status of currently known sites

— A hoverfly, Callicera spinolae — artificial rot-hole habitat
establishment as a survey technique and for study of larval
requirements

eH
‘w! N Number 25 « February 1998 5

— A hoverfly, Chrysotoxum octomaculatum — pilot survey in Surrey
heaths

— Hornet robber fly, Asilus crabroniformis — oviposition behaviour

— A water beetle, Agabus brunneus — habitat management
requirements :

— Pashford leaf beetle, Cryptocephalus exiguus — presence/absence at
former sites and most recently recorded site

— Birch/hazel leaf beetle, Cryptocephalus coryli — presence/absence at
former recorded sites

— Noble chafer — Gnorimus nobilis — presence/status in Wyre Forest
(Worcestershire)

— Crucifix beetle, Panagaeus crux-major — habitat requirements

— Violet click beetle, Limoniscus violaceus — surveys, marking of future
potential habitat trees at Windsor Forest, continued artificial habitat
project

— Lundy cabbage beetle, Psylliodes luridipennis — experimental habitat
research, including rhododendron control.

News from AES Area Representatives

compiled by Martin Harvey

The network of AES Area Conservation Representatives (Area Reps)
enables the AES to react to and help with local conservation issues. The
AES members who volunteer as Area Reps are all keen. invertebrate
conservationists, and between them undertake a wide range of
conservation activities, from surveys of sites to advice on management
plans, from organising local talks and meetings to carrying out practical
habitat management on reserves. If you are interested in conservation
and would like to know more about how you can help, please contact
your local Area Rep. If there is not yet an Area Rep covering your
county please contact Martin Harvey (see address under Berkshire,
above). Please enclose an SAE when writing. The following is a brief
summary of some of our local activities during 1997.

Charles Watson and eleven other entomologists undertook a survey
of a small Essex Wildlife Trust reserve, and were able to provide the
Wigust with a feport on the site. About 850 species were recorded,
including several Red Data Book species, showing that small sites can
be of considerable importance to invertebrates.

~ lag
nN
6 Invertebrate Conservation News ac \.

In Berkshire Martin Harvey has recently established a county group,
the Berkshire Network for Invertebrate Conservation. If you record or
conserve invertebrates in the county please contact Martin to be added
to the mailing list.

In August 1997, Geoff Trevis and Martin Harvey led a joint
AES/British Entomological and Natural History Society Meeting at the
Devil’s Spittleful, a Worcestershire Wildlife Trust reserve. Over a
hundred species were recorded, including the Bee wolf, Philanthus
triangulum, a wasp which preys on bees. This species was until
recently Known only from a few sites on the south coast of England,
and has Red Data Book status. However, in recent years it has spread
widely through south and central England, and is now known from at
least two Worcestershire sites.

“Post-industrial” sites such as old quarries and spoil heaps may not
seem the best places for nature conservation, but they can support a lot
of invertebrates, including some scarce species. In Warwickshire, Brian
Mitchell has continued to argue for the protection and suitable
management of some old colliery sites. All the sites are subject to plans
for development or reclamation, but some provisions are being made
for nature conservation, with some areas being left for conservation.
Although these areas are small and fragmented, Brian hopes that they
will provide a refuge for at least some of the invertebrates which are
currently present.

Sharon Flint is the latest AES member to become an Area
Conservation Representative. Sharon is a post-graduate student at
Lancaster University, and has been carrying out survey work for
Lancashire Wildlife Trust.

Ian Mascall has been busy co-ordinating and reporting on various
surveys of butterflies and moths in Cleveland. At the Cleveland Wildlife
Trust's Scaling Dam Nature Reserve moth-trapping was undertaken in
1996 by several of Ian’s colleagues, producing a list of 83 species,
including Wood carpet (Epirrhoe rivata), Round-winged muslin
(Thumatha senex), Heath rustic (Xestia agathina) and Southern
wainscot (Mythimna straminea). lan is especially keen to receive
records of hawk-moths and fritillary butterflies for the Cleveland area
and North York Moors, to help establish the status of these species.
Some worrying news from Jan was that a fire in the dry spring of 1997
had damaged a site for the Castle Eden argus (the salmacis form or
subspecies of the Northern brown argus Aricia artaxerxes). The fire
was reported to be the result of arson, and could possibly have wiped

Kaw
TsYn
an Number 25 ° February 1998 T

cy
e

out the Castle Eden Dene colonies of this unusual butterfly. Ian would
like to hear from anyone living near the Cleveland/Durham border who
may be able to help monitor the site in 1997, to see if the butterfly has
survived.

List of area reps.

Somerset: Roger Sutton, 16 Ashford Road, Wellington, Somerset,
TA21 8QF

Kent: Tony Steele, 57 Westfield Road, Barnehurst, Kent, DA7 OLR

North-east Essex: Nigel Cuming/Jerry Bowdrey, c/o 33 Holly Road,
Stanway, Colchester, Essex, CO3 5QL

East Hertfordshire/West Essex: Charles Watson, 18 Thorley Park
Road, Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire, CM23 3NQ

Berkshire: Martin Harvey, 10 Kiln Ride, Upper Basildon, Berkshire,
RG8 8TA; email: mh@naturebureau.co.uk

Oxfordshire: Dr Helen Marcan, c/o AES, PO Box 8774, London,
OW OZG

Buckinghamshire: Roger Kemp, Kemp’s Mushrooms Ltd, Kemp’s
Farm, Chapel Road, Ford, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP17 8XG

Cambridgeshire: Robert Partridge, 11 New Road, Mepal, Ely,
Cambridgeshire, CBO 2AP

Worcestershire: Geoff Trevis, 14 Old Coach Road, Droitwich,
Worcestershire, WRI 8BB

Warwickshire: Brian Mitchell, 127 Watling Street, Grendon, near
Atherstone, Warwickshire, CV9 2PH

South Wales: Neil Jones, 31 Drummau Road, Birchgrove, Swansea,
SA7 9QA; email: neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk

Cheshire: Dr Paul Griffiths, Vailima, Broomhall, Nantwich, Cheshire

Lancashire: Sharon Flint, 7 Church Brow, Halton, Lancaster, LA2 6LS;
email: sharon@winkywoo.demon.co.uk

West Yorkshire: Dave Hemingway, 13 Ashdene Garth, Crofton,
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, WF4 1PH

Cleveland: Ian Mascall, 18 Alberta House, Highfield Road,
Middlesbrough, Cleveland, TS4 2NP

Eire: Tim Lavery, Farnes, Castlemaine, County Kerry, Eire

aa
es
8 Invertebrate Conservation News 2 A
Sites and Species of Interest

Misson training area, Nottinghamshire, UK

Dr. Sheila Wright of the Nottingham Natural History Museum is running
a Lepidoptera survey of this site, which is the final remnant of the old
fen grazing and mowing meadows of the Misson/Idle Levels. At last
autumn’s annual exhibition of the British Entomological and Natural
History Society, she presented an interesting exhibit about the site, and
some of the information that she presented is summarised here.

The emphasis so far has been on moths, of which 192 “macros” and
76 “micros? have so far been. recorded Whe list\of species is quite
impressive, considering that it comes from only eight nights of
light-trapping during July and August of 1991, 1995, 1996 and 1997.
High numbers of species caught during individual nights indicate that
species diversity could be exceptionally high for this part of the UK.

Thirty-eight of the moth species so far recorded are nationally
significant, and no fewer than 24 of these are associated with fenland,
breckland, wet woodland and other marshy habitats. Although most of
the nationally significant species are “macros”, there are five “micros” in
this category, of which three are newly recorded for Nottinghamshire,
these being Monochroa lututentella, Syncopacma larseniella and
Sitochroa palealis. The larval foodplants of these moths are, |
respectively, Filipendula ulmaria, Lotus and Genista spp. and Daucus —
carota. The remaining two of these five species are known only from
one other site in the county and are Epinotia demarniana and
Phlyctaenia perlucidalis.

In the case of one species newly recorded for Nottinghamshire, the
Dentate pug, Anticollix sparsata, the discovery represents a new 100 km
square for Britain. This “Grade A Nationally Notable” moth is generally
declining, like various other species dependent on marsh or fenland.
Another Grade A National Notable species found at Misson is the Marsh
carpet, Perizoma sagittata, whose larvae were found feeding on
Meadow true, Thalictrum flavum. Interesting non-lepidopterous species
include the Black darter dragonfly, Sympetrum striolatum and the
beetles Aromia moschata and Corticeus unicolor, which are associated
with old willows and birches respectively.

Although the Misson site might not be a haven for many extreme
rarities, it appears to be of considerable value with regard to current
conservation initiatives based on biodiversity. It is an example of a
habitat type that is under threat not only in the East Midlands of

ar
—~

OWN
ARN Number 25 « February 1998 9

Se

England, but throughout Britain and in other countries. Within this
context, the occurrence of “indicator species”, is of interest. One moth
which might fall into this category at Misson is the Marbled white spot,
Lithacodia pygarga, which, according to a personal communication
from Roger Kendrick to Sheila Wright, is associated with calcareous
seepages, an important habitat which seems to have been neglected in
the designation of candidate Special Areas of Conservation.

Sheila Wright can be contacted at Nottingham Natural History
Museum, Wollaton Hall, Nottingham NG8 2AE (tel. 0115 915 3905).
The local contacts for English Nature are Ian Butterfield or Steve Clifton
(tel. 01476 568431).

Thorne and Hatfield Moors, near Doncaster, Yorkshire, UK

Many naturalists will be relieved to know that English Nature (EN) has
dropped its plans to remove protective status from parts of the Special
Site of Scientific Interest which was established within this peat
extraction area in 1992. Such de-regulation is possible under criteria for
assessing the continuing value of existing SSSIs. In this instance, large
Zomes or the, peatlands have been drained for commercial peat
stripping, and have very little ecological value compared with other
zones that are being managed as wetlands under the conservation
management agreement between EN and the extracting company,
Levington. It has, however, been accepted that the management of the
area as a whole, especially regarding its hydrology, is important for the
conservation and future expansion of the wetland habitats.

Chafers and pesticides at a military airfield

Anyone who reads the excellent wildlife magazine Sanctuary,
published by the UK’s Ministry of Defence, can be in no doubt about
the great ecological value of land which, for military reasons, has been
taken out of normal commercial usage. Wildlife conservation is a major
secondary objective, subject to defence training requirements, and there
are many local groups who study plants and animals on these sites and
give advice as to the conservation of their habitats.

No one would pretend that military usage of land has purely
beneficial effects, and it is in particular accepted that disturbance due to
vehicle manoeuvres can be excessive, even though in moderation it
also helps to maintain vegetational mosaics. One thing that may,
however, be less well known that it has in the past been standard
practice to treat at least some military airfields with insecticides in order

10 Invertebrate Conservation News (ss \,

to discourage birds from hunting for insect prey and thus causing
bird-strike of aircraft. Although bird-strike is a serious matter, which can
occasionally lead to a fatal plane crash, an entomologist could, perhaps,
be forgiven for wondering why the poor old insects should be
indiscriminately exterminated because of a bird-related problem.

The interesting observation that brought this matter to light in the
1997 issue of Sanctuary (No. 26), came from Weg. Cdr. R. Parker, who
found a large swarm of the Summer chafer, Amphimaillon solstitalis at
RAF Mildenhall in the summer of 1995. This was a classic swarming of
adults emerging from the grass-feeding larval stage G.e. on the airfield)
to move to adjacent trees (supplied by the Forestry Commission) for
maturation feeding. He witnessed some further swarming events in
1996, and on one of those occasions some of the beetles flew into a
freight aircraft and caused consternation on their arrival at a US airforce
base.

It seems likely, as Wg. Cdr. Parker suggests, that these large swarms
at Mildenhall have occurred as a result of the discontinuation, in 1991,
of the former routine use of insecticides on the airfield. This was the
wish of the (then) National Rivers Authority, rather than of insect
conservationists. It may, of course, be that populations of insects such
as Chafers, which can reach pest proportions, are likely to recover more
quickly from the discontinuation of pesticide use than some of their
natural enemies (apart from the birds, which the pilots don’t want to
see)... Nevertheless, as Wg. Cdr. Parker-mnotes, the veockchater
(Melolontha) was once a pest but has been reduced to mostly very low
populations by pesticide applications. Another species, the Garden
chafer (Phyllopertha horticola), still seems to have the potential to kill
large areas of grass on airfields and elsewhere.

Now that, for reasons unconnected with invertebrate conservation,
the RAF has been reduced to trying to scare the birds away, a
non-chemical means of insect control is now being sought. One
possibility is the use of parasitic nematode worms, which is an
interesting, though somewhat debatable control measure, which we
hope to discuss in a future issue of JCN.

Aculeate wasps and bees at Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, UK

By examining museum and published records, together with his own
recent survey data, hymenopterist Michael Archer has compiled a list of
54 solitary wasps, 48 solitary bees, 14 social wasps and bees, and five
ants for Sherwood Forest (Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 132: 35-44,

(ae.
PNY
SV Number 25 + February 1998 11

1996). The list represented 22.6% of the British aculeate fauna, although
some of the listed species may now be absent or even nationally
extinct, as in the case of Mellinus sabulosa. The value of the site is due
partly to the ancient standing oaks (Sherwood is one of England’s
premier deadwood habitat areas) and open areas of sandy ground,
which provide good nest sites.

Regional and national “quality scores” for Sherwood were calculated
from the number of species falling into each of several categories of
rarity or vulnerability. Thus, each species contributed a value within the
series 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32. The quality score was divided by the total
number of species to yield a “species quality” score. Sherwood had a
better national species quality score (2.9) than the three heathland
commons of the Vale of York, although one of these, Allerthorpe
Common, had over five times the land area. Interestingly, however,
Allerthorpe would have scored slightly higher than Sherwood on the
basis of the species that it supported before the planting of conifers.

Obituary
T.C. Dunn, MBE

We received the sad news, via the Durham Wildlife Trust’s journal, of
Tom Dunn’s death last year. Tom was an outstanding naturalist and
teacher, whose many interests included Lepidoptera and other insects.
He deserves special mention in ICN because he was very supportive
during our earlier years of publication, when the newsletter was Insect
Conservation News and even back to the days of the AES Conservation
Group bulletin. His was a voice that did much to help the conservation
of invertebrates in the north of England, when other people were
sometimes too restricted in their understanding of what we now call
biodiversity. The story of Brass-side Ponds, Co. Durham, which we
reported many years ago, provides just such an example. Tom will be
sadly missed by naturalists far beyond his home area.

DL

Journal Review

Journal of Insect Conservation

This new journal began publication in March 1997 under the editorship
of Dr. Andrew Pullin of the University of Birmingham, UK. The journal
will publish papers on all aspects of conservation and biodiversity
related to the insects and closely related groups such as arachnids and

myriapods. These papers will embrace original studies, reviews and
expressions of opinion, with a view to bridging the gap between
scientific research and practical conservation.

It remains to be seen whether there could be some overlap with the
more modest scope of /C'’N, but the new publication is a professionally
produced journal at the sort of price that one has to expect nowadays;
for example, the 1997 personal and institutional rates for EU subscribers
are £80 and £195 respectively. Judging by the first issues, which present
four major review papers, the content will be much weightier and more
academic than is appropriate in ICN. One of the papers, by Dr. Tim
New of La Trobe University, Australia, asks the question “Are
Lepidoptera an effective ‘umbrella group’ for biodiversity conservation?”
This is well worth reading, as there is a need for debate about the
wisdom or otherwise of hoping that the less popular forms of
invertebrate life can be adequately conserved by concentrating on more
showy species that inhabit the same areas.

Past Meetings
Devil’s Spittleful Nature Reserve, Worcestershire, August, 1997

This meeting is reported in the AES Area Reps. Section, above.

Invertebrate Conservation Conference, Peterborough,
Sept. 27th, 1997

This, the second Peterborough conference, was well attended and
provided the opportunity for a wide range of amateurs and
professionals to debate the question of whether a new invertebrate
conservation society is necessary and potentially viable. The main
problem remains previously hoped-for sources of funding have not
materialised, which rather sapped the confidence of those who were
arguing for the formation of a new society. It was also felt by some
participants that this important debate was not given enough time,
compared with the presentations on different kinds of habitat which
were given during the morning. However, these presentations were
very stimulating, and provided a taste of practical conservation which
was much needed.

A summary of the proceedings will be given in a future issue of ICN,
after they have been published in full. Copies of these proceedings will
be sent to all participants, and some will be available for other
interested people; details later.

Pays
TA
AY Number 25 * February 1998 13

Future Meetings

Captive Conservation of Endangered Invertebrates

This conference is to take place on Saturday 28th March, 1998 at the
Meeting Room, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London
Nwol4ARY- The «conference is organised by TITAG, the Terrestrial
Invertebrate Taxon Advisory Group, and will address a wide range of
issues, including captive breeding strategies and specific recovery
issues. Anyone interested should contact: Adrian D. Durkin, Dudley &
West Midlands Zoological Society, 2 The Broadway, Dudley, West
Midlands DY1 4QB.

Nonsuch Open Space, Ewell, Surrey

16th May 1998; a meeting of the British Entomological & Natural
History Society, to be led by Roger Hawkins (01293 783397) & David
Lonsdale (h: 01420 83742, w: 01420 526242).

As one of the aims of this BENHS meeting is to provide survey data for
use by local conservationists, we are publishing the following details
ere.

Meet at 10.00 hours in the car park (TQ 227634), The Avenue, just off
London Rd., Ewell. Railway stations: Ewell West, Stoneleigh, Cheam.
Refreshments can be bought in Nonsuch Park. The Park and
surrounding land occupies 168 ha (416 acres), now virtually engulfed
by south London suburbs. Grassland and woodland habitats occur on
_ Chalk, London Clay, Thanet Sand, Woolwich & Reading Beds and
alluvium. Nationally notable species from various orders occur,
including the ant Lasius brunneus and the spider Zilla diodia. A special
search will be mounted for the rare myrmecophilous ladybird
Platynaspis luteorubra, an unconfirmed sighting. Invertebrate records
are needed from specialists in all taxa to help protect the area from
urban encroachment.

oo

CONTENTS
EGitor a rea a etre Se SIA ea) ILS na nen 1

News, Views and General information

Urban development: greenfield versus brownfield sites .............sceee sees Z,

Eco-friendly aphid! Comtroln i tecae cc cesers o-etigqnen dee eoehes causes She aes suc eee era 3

‘Butterflies for the New, Millemmiuma’ scsi cann.ch. acento tee ee coen an ence sae aeeee ie eenae 2

English Nature sesearch on: invertebrates) 2.0... 64cicias. 3s cement coo aneaeetnnet ae +
News from AES Area Representatives 20.00.0000... cee eee eeeetteesneeeneeennes 5

TST OF APSA LEDS iets. ecco eee es cite cae Uae ede bs dst bees Settles Smee des te tye aR ae eee 7
Sites and Species of interest

Misson training area; Nottinghamsinite, Wi: iia i. fees nese nee ee eeecerser 8

Thorne and Hatfield Moors, near Doncaster, Yorkshire; UK) Wiese 9

Chafers and pesticides at a military airfield ....... Pre ee ie eels acon sinectonarceee 9

_ Aculeate wasps and bees at Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, UK ............ 10

Obituary

E.G, MBE ecco occa te a tebe noe t ecient ic gets cece Gr Sree ee ih:
Journal Review

Journal of Insect Conservation dat
Past Meetings .

Devil’s Spittleful Nature Reserve, Wo 12

Invertebrate Conservation Con | 12
Future Meetings ?

Captive Conservation of picineaged Invertebrates Gs deca cose Sic uae eee nee Riese 43

Nonsuch Open Space, Ewell, Surrey. a | Is

: NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this
Journal are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants
offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss,
embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1998. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 20th February 1998 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from PO Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

Editor David Lonsdale

on

ion of The Amateur Entomologists' Society

Icat

ISSN 1356 1359
A publ

Invertebrate
Conservati

|
i

Founded 1935
Where to write
For all JCN business, please write to:

AES
P.O. Box 8774
London
SW7 5ZG

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Martin Harvey
Neil Jones
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann

Stephen Miles

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.
Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Photo: Nick Holford

mates
=.

LETS RE

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION.
NEWS

No. 26, June 1998

Editorial

Throughout the world there is a growing need to conserve wildlife,
brought about by the increasing demands of our own species for natural
resources. This need is most acute in regions where the potential losses
of biodiversity are greatest, especially the tropics, but the very same
regions are often the least able to afford the costs of conservation.
Detailed knowledge, needed for conservation management, has been
largely acquired in affluent temperate countries which possess a
relatively small proportion of the world’s biodiversity. True, there have
been many biological expeditions to the tropics, but these often serve
mainly to unearth large numbers of species, many of them new to
science and with unknown habitat requirements. The main conclusion
seems to be that there is a lot of biodiversity “out there”, and that it is
very sad but perhaps inevitable that so much of it is being destroyed.

Even in relatively well studied countries like the UK, invertebrates
new to science are occasionally found, and it seems possible that some
are becoming extinct without ever having been described. Such
“unseen” extinction is almost certainly occurring on a massive scale in
tropical forests, and this process is currently being highlighted by the
fires that have been raging across huge tracts of forest, especially in
South America and south-east Asia. It is therefore true to say that we will
never know the full impact either of these fires, or of deforestation in
general.

A ruthless person could perhaps argue that it doesn’t matter that we
are destroying biodiversity, but even the most hard-nosed accountant
ought to be aware that we are at the same time frittering away our
“capital” in the form of finite resources. If we do not learn to manage
resources sustainably (and that includes controlling our population
growth amongst many other things), we will have to learn our lesson

2 Invertebrate Conservation News is |

the hard way. Human beings are already dying because of
environmental degradation, but the main impact for the time being is
on the species that share the planet with us. Their plight should be
seen not just as a concern of naturalists in wealthy countries, but also
as a message which has relevance to our own survival.

News, Views and General Information

“Bracken for butterflies”

Although the spread of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) is very often
damaging to the diversity of habitats, it provides habitats in its own
right for various invertebrates, especially some of the two-winged flies
(Diptera). Botanists will also be aware that bracken sometimes forms an
association in non-woodland areas with bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-
scriptus, as the two plants root at different depths and break their
dormancy at different times. The flowering of the bluebell in open
ground is a spectacular site in the spring.

Violets (Viola spp.) are another group of woodland herbs which can
co-exist with bracken, and they are important as foodplants for some of
the fritillary butterflies. It has been found that the larvae of these
butterflies thrive in a very warm environment, which is provided by the

sun’s rays beating down on the layer of dry bracken litter during the -

period before the bracken fronds expand. Information about this
beneficial property of bracken has been provided in a leaflet, Bracken
for Butterflies, obtainable on request with an s.a.e. from: Butterfly
Conservation, P.O. Box 222, Dedham, Colchester, Essex CO7 OEY.

Insect electrocution traps (again!)

We have recently seen complaints that insect electrocution traps, similar
to those used in food-handling premises, are being advertised for
outdoor use. They emit ultra-violet light which attracts insects to their
death on an electrified wire grid. In most such traps, the light source is
effective as an attractant only over a few metres range, but insects from
much further afield are obviously able to enter the zone of attraction. It
therefore seems possible that the outdoor use of the traps might have
the potential to deplete populations of locally distributed species.
Although positive proof of harm to populations would require research,
the indiscriminate use of total-kill traps seems contrary to the
precautionary principle. To put it more emotively, it seems unlikely that
ornithologists would be very happy about the use of total-kill bird traps!

LS =
AN Number 26 « June 1998 3

In the early 1980s, complaints about such advertisements prompted
discussions between entomologists and British suppliers of the traps. One
of the points that was made, via the Joint Committee for the Conservation
of British Invertebrates (CCBD, was that the use of total-kill light traps
was contrary to the widely accepted JCCBI code for collectors.
Assurances were obtained that the electrocution traps were intended for
indoor use only, and it seemed at least for a while that subsequent
advertisements tended to be less specific about the places where they
could be used (see /nsect Conservation News No. 8, Sept. 1983.).

The press advertisements that have led to recent complaints are quite
explicit about the outdoor use of electrocution traps. One, which
appeared in The Daily Telegraph states: “Unlike most other flykillers,
our ultra violet zapper can be used outdoors as well as inside to catch
unwary mosquitoes and other flying insects.” It seems that the JCCBI
may have to renew its representations!

Success of educational slide pack

We are glad to report that the invertebrate slide pack (produced jointly
by English Nature and the AES) has proved popular, but we equally
regret the fact that we have almost sold out! This news comes only two
or three months after the pack was featured in the English Nature
magazine. In view of the continuing demand, we will have to consider
the possibility of producing a further set of copies. However, even apart
from the financial investment required, most of the original slides are
not readily available for copying. Secondary copies, produced from the
existing copies, would probably not be of acceptable quality; indeed
although the existing slide packs do represent much of the superb
quality of the originals, they are inevitably not as good.

Sites and Species of Interest

Crayfish surveys

The only crayfish native to Britain, the White-clawed crayfish
_ (Austropotamobius pallipes), has died out in many rivers owing to
habitat degradation and the fungal disease known as crayfish plague.
This crustacean has been given legal protection under the Wildlife &
Countryside Act. The fungus that causes crayfish plague, ADbanomyces
astaci, was accidentally introduced with the North American Signal
crayfish Pascifastacus lenuisculus, which was unwisely released for
commercial fishery purposes.

we,
e
h Invertebrate Conservation News zat. N

A nverebrate Conse a ASS ae

People who work in or near streams and rivers should do their best
to avoid spreading the fungus to stretches of water that are as yet
unaffected; similar advice applies to the Phytophthora root disease of
alder (see ICN 24). A guide on crayfish plague is available in England
and Wales from the Environment Agency, Rivers House, East Quay,
Bridgewater, Somerset (Tel. 0645 333111).

The Wildlife Trusts of Somerset, Wiltshire and Staffordshire have
recently publicised the need to conserve the few remaining populations
of the White-clawed crayfish that exist in those and in other British
counties. In particular, the Somerset Trust has published a most
interesting article by Richard Thompson in its journal Nature in
Somerset. In the Mendip area of Somerset, the District Council has a
species Action Plan for the crayfish. Also in the Exmoor area, a
surviving population enjoys some protection within an SSSI. In the case
of Wiltshire, the status of the crayfish in the north-west of the county is
to be investigated by the Environment Agency and the Cotswold & By
Brook Project.

The North Yorks Moors National Park is another area that has
recently been surveyed for the crayfish. This has been done by the Park
Authority with grant-aid from English Nature, and has revealed
populations in the rivers Rye and Derwent and their tributaries.

Siag beetle campaign

The Stag beetle (Lucanus cervus), the largest terrestrial invertebrate
native to Britain, is one of the forty-five invertebrates which has a UK
national Biodiversity Action Plan (see ICN 24 about the local
involvement of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire
Wildlife Trust).

As with many other deadwood-inhabiting invertebrates, the Stag
beetle appears to have died out at many sites due to inappropriate
tidying-up of decaying tree trunks and stumps. There is also some
reason to suspect that the removal of specimens from the wild could
adversely affect its populations, partly because of its attractiveness as a
pet or curio, and partly on the premise that the larger the species, the
greater the impact of removing individuals from the population. Also,
there have been occasional cases where unscrupulous entomologists
have dismantled large volumes of deadwood habitat. Due to these
considerations, trade in wild-caught specimens of the Stag beetle has
recently been outlawed in Britain.

b)
cd

Ss Number 26 * June 1998 5

As part of the Stag beetle Biodiversity Action Plan, the People’s Trust
for Endangered Species (PTES) has formed a Stag Beetle Focus Group
to generate publicity for a national survey in the summer of 1998 (“The
Great Stag Hunt”). This was launched on 14th May at Richmond Park, a
well known Stag beetle locality, in the presence of Mr. Michael
Meacher, Minister of the Environment. Evidence of the beetles’
presence at individual sites may help to highlight the importance of
protecting deadwood habitats in general. It will also be interesting to
gain more information about the beetles’ distribution pattern. It now
seems to be confined mainly to south-east and central southern
England, with relative strongholds in the London area and the New
Forest.

The PTES has produced an advisory leaflet with a survey form
attached, copies of which are available from the wildlife trusts in
England. Some of the trusts have already circulated copies to their
members. Other information about the survey can be obtained from the
PTES at 15 Cloisters House, 8 Battersea Park Road, London SW8 4BG
(tel. 0171 498 4543; fax 0171 498 4459; e-mail stags@ptes.co.uk).

Surrey mollusc survey

The Surrey Wildlife Trust has published a very useful and informative
article by Jan Light on slugs and snails. This includes information on the
distribution of species in relation to geology and an ecological
evaluation of the various control measures for pest species. Jan Light is
the marine recorder of the Conchological Society of Great Britain &
Ireland and is also running a recording scheme for the molluscs of
Surrey as part of the county’s Invertebrate Atlas Project. She would
welcome assistance with this project and can be contacted at: 88
Peperharow Road, Godalming, Surrey GU7 2PN (tel. 01483 417782).

White-faced darter at Thursley Common, Surrey

In ICN No. 22, a report was quoted to the effect that a dragonfly, the
White-faced darter (Leucorrhinia dubia), seemed to have died out at
Thursley Common National Nature Reserve, Surrey. The reserve has
been recorded as the most southerly site for this species in Britain,
where it is nationally rare. However, the British Dragonfly Society has
reported that a few adults were seen at Thursley in 1997. As mentioned
previously, some new pools have been blasted at the site, and it is
hoped that these will be colonised by the dragonfly.

age
TSX
6 Invertebrate Conservation News SV

Marsh Fritillary recording scheme in Pembrokeshire

The Marsh Fritillary (Eurodryas aurinia) has now become fully
protected by law in the UK under the Wildlife & Countryside Act,
owing to its internationally endangered status. With its disappearance in
parts of Europe where agriculture has intensified, the more western
parts of the UK remain a relative stronghold. In the county of
Pembrokeshire, the Wildlife Trust is monitoring populations of the
butterfly, and is asking for volunteers to assist with this work. They are
asked to contact Alison Wheeler (tel. 01559 371157).

Feltbam Marshalling Yards, Greater London

This extensive area of land, on the borders of the: outer London
Boroughs of Hounslow and Richmond, ceased nearly thirty years ago to
_ be used as railway marshalling yards. It has developed a diverse flora
and fauna, and was for many years defended for its value as a wildlife
site by the late Peter Cribb and other local naturalists. Indeed, there is
now a local nature reserve on adjacent land on the opposite bank of
the River Crane.

Unfortunately, by the criteria that may be applied by planners, the
Marshalling Yards could be regarded as a brownfield site, ripe for
development (see the editorial in JCN 25). It is therefore not surprising,
though very disappointing, that the eastern portion of the site is now
the subject of a planning application for what is described by objectors
as a “huge industrial estate”. Apparently, this estate would include some
extremely large buildings, including a 5 acre (2 ha) workshed, itself
dwarfed by a new postal sorting office to replace existing Royal Mail
facilities at Twickenham and Kingston. There would also be a 628-place
car park. :

On the other side of the argument, a leaflet entitled “New Future for
the Feltham Marshalling Yards” has been published by and on behalf of
the prospective developers, British Land and Railtrack plc. They say that
the scheme has been designed to meet employment needs and to meet
the requirements of the Hounslow Unitary Development Scheme. They
also refer to various benefits, although these might not appear to have a
great effect on the status quo. For example they say that Railtrack will
allow the formalisation of access to the western marshalling yards, and
that this area will be subject to an appropriate management and nature
conservation plan. However, the area already has both wildlife value
and de facto access.

Xo
ANS Number 26 » June 1998 7

The objectors have issued a statement, pointing out that the
proposed developments would destroy a large area of the grassland
habitats and an area of previously protected woodland. They quote a
report from the London Ecology Unit which bears out Peter Cribb’s
assessment of the site many years ago. The Unit is said to have
described the Marshalling Yards as “probably the largest and best
quality wasteland site in Greater London”. A survey report, prepared in
1988, is said to list 21 butterfly species and 100 moth species, as well as
various rare plants. It is not clear whether, at this stage, assistance with
further invertebrate recording would be of any use to the objectors, but
we hope to provide more news in a later issue of JCN.

The Hornet robber fly in Wales

The Hornet robber fly (Asilus crabroniformis), a rather spectacular
predator of other insects, was once widespread in lowland England and
Wales, but is now known from fewer than 20 sites, concentrated in the
Dorset heathlands of southern England and in parts of South Wales.
Recent news of surveys in Wales has come via the February 1998 issue
of Urban Wildlife News (a publication of the national conservation
agencies in Great Britain) and in a report (to the JCCBI) provided by
Adrian Fowles of the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW).

In the 1997 surveys, two previously unknown populations were
found near Swansea and on the Gower Peninsula. One important
feature of these habitats is the presence of grazing mammals, whose
dung supports the beetles which make up the prey of the larval stage
of A. crabroniformis. This relationship brings to mind the problems
caused by the administering of the anti-helminthic drug ivermectin to
livestock (see ICN 23). As it is classified as a drug, it is not subject to
the same environmental regulations as pesticides, but it is very
damaging to dung-feeding invertebrates.

In addition to CCW’s site surveys for A. crabroniformis, the
autecology of the insect was studied by Peter Skidmore and Dave
Clements. They concentrated on adult behaviour, particularly
Oviposition, and larval ecology.

Further information about the Hornet robber fly in Wales can be
obtained from David Painter or Jonathan Graham, Countryside Council
for Wales, RVB House, Llys Felin Newydd, Phoenix Way, Swansea
Enterprise Park, Llansamlet, Swansea SA7 9FG (tel. 01792 771949; fax
01792 771981).

8 Invertebrate Conservation News “is d

The Black bog ant in West Wales

In his latest report to the JCCBI, Adrian Fowles of the Countryside
Council for Wales has reported that the rare Black bog ant (Formica
candida) was recently re-discovered on Rhossili Down on the Gower
Peninsula of West Wales. This was followed in 1997 by an extensive
survey, involving transects across the slopes, and the results indicate
that the population of the ant at this site is one of the largest in the UK.

There is a national Biodiversity Action Plan for the ant, in which the
West Wales Wildlife Trust is the “lead partner”. The Trust reports that
Adrian Fowles and his colleague Mike Howe, with other biologists,
have been monitoring the known population of the ant at the Cors
Goch Llanllwch National Nature Reserve. An autecological study of this
population has concentrated on nest-founding, gyne-worker
composition, food preferences and inter-nest relations.

Continued decline of Dorset heathland

The heathlands of southern Britain are very important for invertebrates,
as the drier types of heath support many warmth-loving species which
are near the limits of their geographic ranges. There are also many
species which inhabit the acid boggy areas which occur within many of
the heathlands. The Dorset heathlands were once very extensive, but
have declined greatly in area over the last two centuries, as mentioned ~
in the AES book Habitat Conservation for Insects, published in 1991.

The figures quoted in the AES book were 40 000 ha in 1750, reducing
to 5000 ha by 1980, with an estimated continuing loss of about 260 per
annum. That rate of loss has clearly not been sustained, as it would by
now have led almost to the elimination of the Dorset heathlands. Some
losses have, however, continued, as shown by a study summarised by
the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE) in its 1996-97 Scientific Report.
The study was partly funded by the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds and Dorset County Council.

In the ITE study, carried out by N.R. Webb, R.J. Rose and R.T. Clarke,
four categories of heathland were recognised: (1) dry heath, dominated
by heather (Calluna vulgaris); (2) humid heath, co-dominated on areas
of impeded drainage by heather and Cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix);
(4) wet heath, which has a water table within 100 mm of the surface
and is dominated by Cross-leaved heath and the mosses Sphagnum
compactum and S. tenellum; (4) peatiand or valley mire, dominated by
species of Sphagnum on an organic substrate which is waterlogged for
much of the year.

th
IAIN Number 26 » June 1998 )

According to the data in the graph provided (which do not seem to
tally with the text of the report), the overall area of heathland declined
from 5466 ha in 1978 to 5262 ha in 1996, a loss of 2%. This loss was
almost entirely attributable to vegetational succession, in contrast to
losses in earlier decades which had resulted more from changes in land
use.

Within the four categories of heathland, there was some decline in
dry heath, probably due to succession to scrub and woodland.
Conversely, the area of humid heath increased slightly, perhaps at the
expense of zones that were previously identified as wet heath but later
became drier. Indeed, the area of wet heath decreased from 838 ha to
only 443 ha, with most of this decline having occurred between 1987
and 1996. Also, the peatland area declined from 591 ha to 445 ha,
following a period of littke change between 1978 and 1987. It thus
appears that the main change in the Dorset heathlands in recent years
has been due to drying out. This observation clearly has implications
for future management, following a period in which the major concern
was the change in land use.

The butterflies of Belgian Lorraine

A group of amateur entomologists has recently published the results of
a study of the status of all the butterfly species in the Lorraine district of
Belgium (bordered by France and Luxembourg) found over five
seasons (1990-94). This report, by Eric Cavalier, Jean-Luc Renneson,
Paul Taymans and Yves Valenne, has appeared in No. 34 (1998) of
Notes Fauniques de Gembloux which is one of the journals exchanged
with ICN.

For each of the 84 species recorded there is a distribution map,
showing whether the species is generally present or occurs as a migrant
or only within the north or the south of the 10 km square concerned.
There are also notes on the habitat, breeding pattern, population
density and status of each species. For example, the Marsh Fritillary
(Eurodryas aurinia) is shown in four of the 21 squares and said to be
in serious decline. The Grayling (Hipparchia semele) is also said to be
endangered in this district, and is shown in only one square. The
distribution of a few legally protected species, such as the Heath
fritillary (Mellicta athalia), is confidential and is not shown.

In addition to the accounts of the various species, the authors have
placed them into categories, based on distribution and status. For
example about 45% of the species belong to Category 4, which consists

wit
10 Invertebrate Conservation News 7K
of rare or extremely localised species, of which six are restricted to the
Lorraine district within Belgium as whole. These six are as follows:
Glanville fritillary (Melitaea cinxia), Chestnut heath, (Coenonympha
glycerion), Blue-spot hairstreak (Nordmannia spini), Adonis blue
(Lysandra bellargus), Green-underside blue (Glaucopsyche alexis) and
Large copper (Lycaena dispar).

Finally, there is a table showing the decline (or otherwise) of each
species during the decades of the present Century.

Leaflet Review

British Trust for Conservation Volunteers: Woodland Action
Leaflet

This leaflet was published, with sponsorship from Halifax plc, to
coincide with the BTCV’s fifth annual Woodland Action Week at the
end of February 1998. It outlines the history of woodlands in Britain
and also explains the various benefits that woodlands provide,
including wildlife habitats, a recreational and amenity resource, carbon
dioxide sinks and sources of timber. Emphasis is placed on the need to
establish new woodlands which can be managed so as to augment
ancient woodlands which now occupy only 200,000 ha in Britain and
are often isolated.

The need for long term management plans is stressed in relation to
the various options that exist. The need to manage woodlands with
different types of wildlife in mind, including invertebrates, is explained.
In this context, notes are provided on coppicing, dead wood protection
and the maintenance of structural diversity at woodland edges, rides,
glades and by areas of open water.

The leaflet includes a good deal of other information on matters such
as health and safety for conservation work, involvement with local
people and groups, celebratory events and educational activities. There
is also a further reading list Gincluding Peter Kirby’s book Habitat
Management for Invertebrates, but not the AES book which preceded
it), and a list of useful addresses. The only invertebrate organisation on
the address list is Butterfly Conservation but this is probably no reason
to criticise BTCV, as there is not yet an organisation for British
invertebrates in general that can handle the day-to-day issues of
conservation. :

DL

tH :
isa Number 26 + June 1998 11
Future UK Meetings

As an experiment (comments welcome!), we are listing a number of
invertebrate meetings selected from available programmes of wildlife
trusts. Please note that attendance at meetings of organisations other
than the Amateur Entomologists’ Society may be subject to certain
conditions which are not stated in the following list: e.g. restricted
numbers, no dogs allowed etc. For this reason, anyone who is not a
member of the organisation concerned and would like to attend should
first speak to the meeting organiser concerned, whose phone number is
shown. It should also be noted that the Amateur Entomologists’ Society
does not accept responsibility for any errors in the details provided here.

Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates

August 22nd (Saturday): general invertebrate meeting with Dr. Paul
Waring, in the New Forest, Hampshire, with nocturnal session by
arrangement. The area includes various oak woodlands with mature trees.
Meet at 11 a.m. in Whitley Wood Car Park, off the A357 (SU 300055).
Bring packed lunch. Please ring or write to Dr. Paul Waring, 1366 Lincoln
Road, Werrington, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire PE4 6LS (01733 571917).

Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust

July 10th (Friday): “Creatures of the Night - Stag beetles and other
beasties”, with C. Bailey, M. Harvey & Maiden Earley Park Rangers;
meet at 7.30 p.m. at the weir in the park (SU 750710), car parking along
Instow Road, Earley, Berkshire. Please ring C. Bailey (01865 775476) or
R. Harrington-Vail (0118 986 8995).

July 23rd (Thursday): “An illuminated evening at Holtspur Bank”
(glow-worms), with M. Young; meet at 7.30 p.m. by the scout hut in
Cherry Tree Road, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire (SU 924905). Please
ring M. Young (01628 472000).

July 26th (Sunday): Butterflies, moths, ants and ladybirds at Pilch Field,
Buckinghamshire with M. Killeby; meet at 2 p.m. at the Reserve entrance
on Pilch Lane (SP 747322). Please ring M. Jones (01296 713696).

Gloucestershire Invertebrate Group

July 18th (Saturday): at Moseley Green and Cannop Valley (Forest of
Dean); grassland, woodland and aquatic invertebrates (incl. crayfish);
meet at 10.30 a.m. along lane off the B4431 (SO 632086). Please ring
Roger Gaunt (01594 530475).

2 Invertebrate Conservation News (s:

September 19th (Saturday): at Sandpool Farm and Somerford Lakes;
diverse habitats (special interest in bush crickets and mining bees);
meet at 10.30 a.m. in Neigh Bridge Car Park (SU 017946) on the Spine
Road, south-west of Somerford Keynes. Please ring David Haugh
(01242 513544).

October 18th (Sunday): Highnam Woods; species include ancient
woodland molluscs and wood-boring beetles; meet at 10.30 a.m. in
RSPB Car Park off the A40 (SO 778190). Please ring Keith Alexander
(01285 651171):

Hampshire Wildlife Trust

July 4th (Saturday): guided walk and butterfly transect on Portsdown Hill
with Theo Roberts; meet at 10 a.m. at Fort Purbrook car park (SU 679063).
Please ring Mike Harris (01705 384538) or Alan Thurbon (01705 325570).

July 18th (Saturday): butterflies on Bartley Heath, with Paul Boswell;
meet at 2 p.m. at Cotman’s Corner (SU 723525). Please ring Tony Lear
(01256 763492).

July 26th (Sunday): dragonflies and damselflies on the Basingstoke
Canal with Drs. Chris and Bill Wain; meet at 2 p.m. at Claycart Bridge
car park (SU 853257). Please ring John Ayres (01252 617351).

North Kent Wildlife Preservation Society/London Wildlife Trust

July 24th (Friday): bat and moth watch at Footscray Meadows (TQ
404724) with Barry Cheal; rendezvous at 8.30 p.m. at Sidcup railway
station. Please ring Barry Cheal (0181 300 8036).

Somerset Wildlife Trust

July 12th (Sunday): butterfly walk in Bentley Woods, with John
Patterson; meet at 10: a.m. at the Reserve car park<(Sil 264293):
Information available via the Trust office (01823 451587).

Sussex Wildlife Trust

July 5th (Sunday): Watch group Guniors) “Not so ugly bug ball” at
Woods Mill Countryside Centre; meet at 2 p.m. Please ring Jenny Baker
(01444 483507) or Lucy Webber (01273 492630).

July 19th (Sunday): Watch group Guniors) butterfly hunt on South
Downs near Madehurst; meet at 2 p.m. on the minor road between
Madehurst and Houghton (SU 993105). Please ring Jenny Baker (01444
483507) or Lucy Webber (01273 492630).

bh i
ANN Number 26 + June 1998 13

Worcestershire Invertebrate Group

July 11th (Saturday): Grafton Woods; local experts will cover various
taxa, meet at 10.30 a.m; moth trapping evening to follow. Please obtain
other information from Geoff Travis (01905 774952). (A note about this
newly established group is to appear in ICN 27.)

The Wildlife Trusts
(Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire)

July 16th (Thursday): Watch Group Guniors) “beastly hunt” with sweep
nets and pooters at Houghton Regis, Bedfordshire; meet at 6.30 p.m. at
Houghton Regis Pavilion (village green). Please ring 01582 415225.

July 19th (Sunday): Butterfly walk in Potton Wood, Bedfordshire with
Paul Woiwood (fee payable); meet at 2 p.m. at Potton water tower (TL
247495). Please ring Gavin Kennerley (01234 364213).

August 8th (Saturday): Watch Group (Guniors), butterflies and
dragonflies at Hinchingbrooke Country Park nr. Huntingdon; meet at
10.30 a.m. at the Visitor Centre. Please ring the Rangers (01480 451568).

August 13th (Thursday): Watch Group Guniors) “minibeast hunt” (fee
payable) at Graffham Water, Cambridgeshire; meet at 2 p.m. at the
Wildlife Cabin, Mander Car Park. Please ring Jo Calvert (01480 812660).

OSGI

Erratum

The editorial of ICN 25 referred to the campaign for the “right to roam”
in the UK. This campaign is concerned only with uncultivated land; the
use of the word “cultivated” on line 10 of the editorial was a
typographical error, for which we apologise.

CONTENTS
EiGite@riiall cysts OR SINE ie PREORATGhS ACES TG Ra tb 0 0 Roe te Sa 1

News, Views and General information
“Bracken for bUtMerhhesr ses oiesc costs cat os coer teake es SI cae atin nee eae
InsectielectrocutionctrapsiCa gail) oe. caeerya ices ctekatcc ec ceb ca aereeece tener een Meee ere
Success of educationalslide:packo Macias Giles coe eeeeae te Pale nee CE irae

oS)

Ov

Sites and Species of interest
Crayfish SURVEYS Aas i esce: acdeackecwrokceageeassueden oe ec atints dante | Nate tan teller a ee reeea
Stas beetle camapatom oe ic Sieh ateadw okies aiesetene: cee t) 10 ge OMI target SE nen al
Surrey, mollusc-Suivey, ie ears haan Ee eect eae a ec
White-faced* darter at Hhursley, Common, sSumeyin. ec ois ee
Marsh Fritillary recording scheme in’ Pembrokeshire s...-03. eee
Feltham Marshalling Yards, Greater London ........... er tens ecuiac done n Ga isecur ae
The-Hormet robber ty: tt Wales. 00 fe i Oe eee ee
The Black*bog ant in- West Wales vaca. cect tt seas cs cae tc) oe een
Continued decline of Dorset: neathlanGdrvwite ok es eee oes
The buttertlies of Belgian Loraine: 34 eta s: SMA se een ee ere ee

SMO ON ADD WW & VK

Leaflet Review
British Trust for Conservatio

Yoodland Action Leaflet............. 10
Future Meetings

Erratum ga. penctecne een me oS ‘ 13

NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this
Journal are solely those of the author(s) concerned. All announcements of meetings, financial grants
offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss,
embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1998. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 20th June 1998 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from PO Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

Invertebrate
Conservation
News

wv

Number 27

ISSN 1356 1359 Editor David Lonsdale

A publication of The Amateur Entomologists' Society

ENntOMoO/_. .
\'

S
Sy
v
<=
=

yao”

Founded 1935
Where to write
For all JCN business, please write to:

AES
P.O. Box 8774
London
2 SW7 5ZG

http://www.theaes.org

E-mail: aes@theaes.org

ICN Editor:
David Lonsdale

AES Habitat Conservation Officer:
Martin Harvey

AES Conservation Committee
Martin Harvey
Neil Jones
David Lonsdale
Darren Mann
Stephen Miles

ICN is printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

Cover designed by Wayne Jarvis. Photo: Nick Holford

|
|

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION
NEWS

No. 27, October 1998

Editorial

In this issue of ICN we report the publishing of a new code for
collectors of fungi in the UK; a code which has appeared many years
later than its counterpart for insects, which was produced by the Joint
Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates G@CCBI). The
JCCBI code has been widely accepted, probably because it represents
the sort of moderation which is in any case observed by scrupulous
entomologists. The new code for the collection of fungi (see below) is
fairly similar in tone, but it may be less compatible with current
mycological practice than the JCCBI code has proved to be with current
entomological practice. In particular, the code could clash with the
quite common practice of removing a large proportion of the fungal
fruiting bodies present within a fungus foray area. Also, there is an
increasing interest in the gathering of wild fungi for food, often on a
commercial scale.

As far as the fungi themselves are concerned, mycologists argue that
the removal of fruit bodies is analogous to removing fruit from a tree
and should not be likened to the removal of the tree itself, nor even the

uprooting of much smaller types of green plant. Although it is almost

certainly correct to assume that fruit bodies can be removed without
harming the fungal mycelium to which they are attached, it is not

known whether the concomitant loss of spore-bearing capacity can

affect the ability of the species to establish new colonies and survive in

_ the long term. :

For fungi, as for invertebrates, any harm that might be caused by
collecting is vastly outweighed by habitat destruction due to changes in
land use. A lesser degree of habitat destruction can of course
occasionally result from the collection of specimens, whether of fungi

: AN
2 Invertebrate Conservation News [s:

or of invertebrates. For example, considerable harm can be done to
deadwood habitats if excessive amounts of material are dismantled.
However, the major difference in the situation facing mycologists, as
compared with entomologists, is that fungi are themselves habitats for
many other species, principally invertebrates.

It is not known to what extent, if any, the removal of fungal fruit
bodies during fungus forays might be a threat to populations of
dependent invertebrates. When fruit bodies are removed or destroyed
their existing inhabitants are usually doomed, but at least the more
mobile species will be able to recolonise the site when new fruit bodies
develop. More worrying is the increase in culinary collecting, which
could be expected to deplete the habitat more seriously in some areas,
especially when damage is done to the litter layer by the undesirable
practice of raking. More particularly, it seems possible that invertebrates
with specialist requirements and poor powers of dispersal could suffer
local or even total extinction due to removal of their habitat. This
problem of habitat damage makes it particularly hard to decide how
much restraint should be urged on collectors.

Controversy in the British press has followed the publication of the
code (e.g., The Daily Telegraph, 31st August 1998 and British Wildlife
9: 349-356). A major fear of those who defend individual freedom is

that proposals in the code could be enforced almost like law by —

landowners and managers. Entomologists in the UK may feel a sense of
déja vu, but they should perhaps have some appreciation of the fact
that, unlike amateur mycologists, they have the JCCBI as a talking-shop
and a provider of codes.

News, Views and General Information

Events and developments in Worcestershire, UK
A note from Geoff Trevis,
Worcestershire Conservation Representative for the AES

A meeting was held on 13th May at the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust
headquarters. It was attended by a wide range of experts in various
taxa. Several representatives had an interest in invertebrates and the
Opportunity was taken to try to launch a Worcestershire Invertebrate
Group. This group is not seen as competing with established
organisations such as Butterfly Conservation or the British Dragonfly
Society but rather to encourage interest in less well recorded taxa. The
Group will aim to collate records from the county, to arrange field
meetings and to provide a focus for entomologists. We will hope to

‘
mw Number 27 ° October 1998 3

publish a newsletter and scientific reports. Some AES members are
already involved and we hope that others who have not yet been in
touch will take the opportunity to make contact and help with the
recording and conservation of the county’s invertebrates.

The Worcestershire Invertebrate Group will be independent, though
with close links to the AES, Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and the
Worcestershire Biological Records Centre. AES members who would
like to join are invited to contact me at 14, Old Coach Road, Droitwich
Spa, Worcestershire WR9 8BB (tel. 01905 774952).

Synthetic pyrethroid sheep dips

Due to serious concerns over the health risks to people handling
organo-phosphate (OP) sheep dips, British farmers have been
increasingly switching to dips based on synthetic pyrethroids (SPs) for
ice commol of sheep scab. These are much less toxic than OPs.to
humans, but they are extremely potent insecticides which can wipe out
aquatic invertebrates if they find their way into watercourses. Such
problems have resulted from particular spillage incidents. Two such
GAsesuil wales, which were mentioned inva recent issue of the
environmental newsletter Habitat, involved the River Wye and the Afon
Twrch, a stream flowing into Llyn Tegidm. It seems likely that less
spectacular contamination of waters is occurring from routine use.

The news item in Habitat mentions that a joint letter, expressing
grave concern about the use of SPs, has been sent by two government
agencies to Welsh Office minister Win Griffiths. The two bodies
concerned are the Environment Agency, which has responsibility for
rivers, and the Countryside Council for Wales.

Butterflies for the New Millennium: recent progress

In the summer 1998 newsletter for the BNM project, co-ordinator Richard
Fox reported that the total number of records in the national database had
already doubled during the year so far. The number was 630,000,
covering 85% of the 10km squares in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and
the Isle of Man. Within some of these squares a number of 1km squares
and tetrads remained under-recorded, but local co-ordinators had been
asking recorders to fill in these gaps. The aim is to produce an atlas in the
year 2000, which will include both current distributions (1995 to 1999) and
earlier data. Many of the earlier data will come from BRC records, but
other records are being requested. Another development has been the
launch of BNM -— Ireland by the Dublin Naturalists’ Club in association
with Butterfly Conservation and the Biological Records Centre (BRC).

4 Invertebrate Conservation News a

Code of conduct for collection of fungi in the UK

On 3rd September 1998, a code entitled “The Wild Mushroom Picker’s
Code of Conduct” was published by English Nature in conjunction with
the Woodland Trust, The National Trust (of England, Wales & Northern
Ireland) and the Forestry Commission. The code itself is accompanied
by a coloured leaflet, under the separate title of “The Conservation of
Wild Mushrooms”. This serves as a preamble to the code, explaining
what fungi are and why they are vitally important in ecosystems and as
a resource for humans. Prominence is given to the role that fungi play
as habitats for over 1000 British invertebrates, and there is a picture of
the rare erotylid beetle 7riplax russica, which occurs in and among
fungi on dead wood.

The leaflet addresses the question as to whether collecting poses a
threat to fungi and their dependent organisms. As far as the fungi
themselves are concerned, it is made clear that evidence of harm does
not currently exist. However, the need to apply the precautionary
principle is stated. The final section of the leaflet outlines the possible
application of UK laws to collectors of fungi.

The code itself is divided into five sections, some of which are
directed at different interest-groups. The first section gives general
guidelines, including advice to obtain landowners’ permission and to
follow the Country Code. It also emphasises the need to avoid damage
to habitats, such as leaf litter and dead wood.

The second section of the code is directed at those who collect for
the pot; i.e. individual fungus-eaters rather than commercial pickers. As
well as warning people about poisonous species, these guidelines stress
the need to collect edible fruit bodies only in moderation and to avoid
picking or destroying those of species which are not to be eaten. The
recommended limit for a site visit is a total of 1.5 kg or half of the fruit
bodies of any single species present, whichever is the lesser. A warning
is also given that culinary collecting on many protected sites, such as
nature reserves and SSSIs, is not likely to be allowed and should never
be done without prior consultation with the site owner or manager.

The next section, “Guidelines for scientific collecting”, is aimed
mainly at those who collect fungi for the purposes of study. It
acknowledges that specimens have to be taken, while urging that no
more should be taken than are strictly needed for study. It also states
that the results and significance of the findings should be made known,
both to the site owner or manager and to museums and databases. The
next section, “Advice for foray leaders”, echoes the guidelines on

th
wR Number 27 +» October 1998 5

scientific collecting, while also emphasising the additional safeguards
that may apply when large groups of people are involved. It also adds
a warning to avoid the use of rakes except where absolutely essential,
in which case the raked areas should be restored as far as possible.

The final section is “Advice for landowners and managers”. While
suggesting that foray groups are generally to be welcomed, this advice
also raises the idea that owners may wish to set limits on the number of
visits. It also indicates that it will “probably be inappropriate” to limit
picking to scientific collection on nature reserves or other protected
areas like SSSIs. It furthermore points outs that, on SSSIs, the picking of
fungi may require consent from the statutory nature conservation body.
Unlike the rest of the code, this section also deals specifically with
commercial collecting. It sets out some of the limitations which
landowners may wish to impose, for example regarding the species that
are to be collected and the area covered by the permission. Other
possible limitations mentioned relate to the quantities of fruit bodies,
the collecting methods and the season.

On the whole, the code seems to represent a moderate application of
the precautionary principle as far as fungi themselves are concerned,
and a warning to those who have not hitherto been aware of the
importance of fungi as invertebrate habitats. It is to be hoped that the
arguments about dependent organisms may persuade people that
collecting without restraint may be more damaging than they formerly
realised. On the other hand, some people may quite reasonably ask
whether the designation of a site as “protected” is sufficient reason to
discourage Owners and managers from allowing collecting. Most field
naturalists have traditionally supported such designation, but their
support could falter if they come to feel that it tends to result in the
unnecessary curtailment of their private study, or indeed of their
personal freedom. (Some issues raised by this code are addressed in the
editorial of this issue of ICN.)

Both the code and the accompanying leaflet are available free of
charge in the UK from English Nature’s Enquiry Service (tel. 01733
455101). Information on the code can also be obtained from Dr. Brian
Johnson (tel. 01823) or Carl Borges (tel. 01209 796666).

Urban development: greenfield versus brownfield sites

In ICN 25 an article under the above title questioned the currently
“received wisdom” that the demand for millions of new houses in
Britain should be met by building on so-called brownfield sites always
in preference to greenfield ones. Subsequently, the May 1998 issue of

WS
we
6 Invertebrate Conservation News me!

English Nature magazine carried an article entitled “Making the of Town
Land”. This refers to a new English Nature report “A Framework for the
Future: Green Networks with Multiple Uses in and around Towns’. The
report concludes that arteries of “green” land within built-up areas can
be expanded into national networks so as to enhance wildlife habitats
and the environment for people. It is argued that such networks are
needed to complement the local Biodiversity Action pe which focus
on core areas of habitat only.

The article in the EN magazine does not indicate to what extent the
green arteries that have been identified come under the “brownfield” or
the “greenfield” label. In reality many brownfield sites are far richer in
wildlife, especially invertebrate life, than intensively farmed greenfield
ones. This has been pointed out in the JCN article and also in an article
by Barry Cheal in the magazine of the North Kent Wildlife Preservation
Society Gssue No. 3, 1998). Anyway, it is good to see signs that one of
our statutory agencies might be willing to challenge the current
greenfield-brownfield dogma.

The Cribb Award for invertebrate conservation

The Amateur Entomologists’ Society has decided to set up a small
award in memory of the late Peter Cribb, who gave outstanding service
to invertebrate conservation and to amateur entomology in general. The
award, which will have a value of approximately £50, will be made
periodically to individuals who have made a significant contribution to
invertebrate conservation. A panel will. consider nominations annually,
although the AES will reserve the right to make the award only when
the nominations include a candidate of appropriate merit. Precise
details regarding eligibility, rules and procedures will be announced in
a future issue of the main AES Bulletin and on the Society’s website.
Another suggestion which was made by some of Peter's friends soon
after his death in 1993 was that a series of memorial field meetings
should be held in his old haunts in the Ditchling area of East Sussex.
This possibility is being explored, and we hope to be able to report
progress in a future issue of JCN.

The TCD Annual Natural History Weekend

As sadly reported in ICN 25, the well known naturalist and insect
conservationist Tom Dunn died last year. It has been decided that there
should be an annual field event to celebrate Tom’s life and work. Due
to problems with timing, we were not able to relay the details of the
1998 event in JCN, but it may be possible to provide a report on it in

‘
ne Number 27 ° October 1998 7

—S

due course. The primary purpose of the gathering was to add
information on the Lepidoptera of Hamsterley Forest, one of Tom’s old
haunts. It was due to be hosted by the Durham Wildlife Trust during
the weekend of 25th-26th July on behalf of local societies, individuals
and the British Entomological & Natural History Society.

Sites and Species of Interest

The Large heath butterfly at Otterburn, NE England

An entire article is devoted to the Large heath, Coenonympha tullia,
iithe 1998 issue of Sanctuary, the conservation magazine of the British
Ministry of Defence. In the article, Harry Eales points out that 145 of the
212 sites where this scarce butterfly occurs in England and Wales are in
the north-eastern county of Northumberland. Colonies are known from
a further five English counties, but the butterfly has become extinct
within an additional six where it was formerly recorded.

Harry Eales states that the decline of this insect in Britain has been
entirely due to the lowering of water tables. Its larval foodplant, the
Hare’s-tail cotton grass (Eriophorum vaginatum), will only grow in very
wet conditions. The adults feed on Cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix),
which also grows in a similar environment. Both plant species decline
and eventually die out if their sites become drier. Although C. tullia is
but one species which happens to be a relatively attractive one, the
degradation of its habitat has severe consequences for many other
invertebrates with similar requirements. Harry Eales quotes a figure of
3500 such species as being recorded from raised and blanket bogs and
from other types of mire where C. tullia occurs.

The Otterburn Army Field Training Centre occupies 22,900 hectares
of windswept uplands. Within this large expanse, C. tullia has so far
been found at 28 sites, all of these being blanket bogs. Most of these
sites are barred from public access, as they lie within impact areas for
live firing, but four of them lie within an area at Darden Lough, around
which people are allowed to walk on a restricted circular route. Even
authorised personnel are allowed to enter the remaining sites only on
certain days when firing is not taking place, and there are often merely
two or three such days during the flight period each year. With
unsuitable weather on some such occasions, survey work is difficult
and much still needs to be done.

Although the military use of the Otterburn area restricts human
access, it has probably been very beneficial to C. tullia and other

a
8 Invertebrate Conservation News a N

moorland invertebrates. Many similar upland areas have been drained and
planted with conifers. However, another use of the area, i.e. grouse
shooting, does have some implications for C. tullia, as it involves the
periodic burning of the heather. This practice has the potential to wipe
out the insect’s colonies if it is done over too large an area. Restriction of
burning is therefore advisable within areas where colonies are known to
occur. Harry Eales points out also that the cotton-grass tussocks which the
butterfly needs for oviposition and for larval overwintering can take up to
ten to fifteen years to develop from the seedling stage. Existing tussocks
survive burning, but they lose the dead plant material which is needed for
Oviposition and which takes several years to build up again. Despite the
possibilities of damage from burning, the survey has shown that some
large colonies in the training area are close together and could probably
be re-colonised by the butterfly even if its habitat were locally destroyed.

Over-tidy beaches and the strandline beetle Nebria complanata

It is widely known in the UK that the use of land for military purposes,
thought not without its drawbacks, has been extremely valuable in
protecting wildlife habitats from damage from intensified agriculture and
conifer afforestation. The above-mentioned article from Sanctuary
magazine about the Large heath butterfly provides a good example of
this. Perhaps less well known is the beneficial effect of beaches being
under the charge of the armed forces! After all, beaches do not generally
need protection from intensive agriculture or forestry. However, an
article by Jack Donovan in the same issue of Sanctuary draws attention
to the damaging effects of intensive public use of beaches. This may
involve over-zealous tidying-up by local authorities, the removal or
burning of deadwood flotsam and disturbance of habitats by dogs.

The difference between beaches with either frequent or infrequent
public access was apparent from a survey of the carabid beetle Nebria
complanata in Pembrokeshire. Unlike most inland carabids, this
handsome species is mainly very light-coloured, with darker streaks on
its elytra. Specimens were found mainly under strandline detritus,
including pieces of wood, and were concentrated in areas where the
upper strandline merged into a dune system without a cliff feature. Jack
Donovan refers also to research which was done on this beetle many
years ago. This indicated that logs on the beach were important as
shelter from extremes of temperature and humidity. It was also found
that the females laid their eggs above the strandline in holes which they
left open; this may mean that backfilling by disturbance could be a
problem for survival or for larval emergence.

&

‘
heh Number 27 ° October 1998 9

In the recent survey, a comparison was made between Frainslake
Sands, which is little disturbed, and the nearby Freshwater West, where
many people walk with dogs or collect wood as beachcombers or
barbecue users. Whereas 314 specimens were found at the former site,
only one was found at the latter. As some of the loss of habitat on
public beaches is due to tidying-up by local authorities, it seems clear
that a different attitude on their part needs to be fostered. The author
puts in a plea for some areas to be left undisturbed, so that beach
detritus, preferably consisting of natural materials such as logs and
stumps, can be retained.

British moths

The news bulletin of the National Moth Conservation Project (April
1997 to March 1998) includes news of work on a number of rare and
endangered species. The presence of the Small Dotted footman (Pelosia
obtusa) was confirmed at Catfield Fen, Norfolk by Dr. Paul Waring with
members of the Norfolk Moth Group and the local branch of Butterfly
Conservation, which has a reserve at the site. Paul mentions that the
British range of this species is confined to several sites within the
Norfolk Broads, where it appears to be associated with Common reed
(Phragmites communis). Interestingly, the larvae feed on green algae of
the Desmococcus/Pleuroccocus type, which develop on the lower stems
of the reed if these have remained uncut or undisturbed for some years.
The concern is that the efforts of several organisations to re-establish
regular reed-cutting could destroy the habitats of this moth, but the
recent discoveries should increase the chance of averting this. However,
it is important as a matter of principle that the restoration of any
traditional but neglected land management practices should be planned
judiciously.
Another moth which has been studied for its food-plant requirements
was the Bright wave (Jdaea ochrata), the subject of a preliminary
project held jointly by Butterfly Conservation and English Nature. Only
three populations of this Biodiversity Action Plan Short List species
have been recorded in Britain; on sandhills from Walmer to Sandwich
in Kent, near St. Osyth in Essex and between Aldeburgh and
Thorpeness in Suffolk. No sightings have been made at the Essex site
since 1985, nor at the Suffolk site since 1991. In the survey, which took
place near Sandwich, several forb species were identified as possible
foodplants, and subsequent feeding experiments have given positive
results with Common chickweed (Stellaria media) and Black medick

K :
10 Invertebrate Conservation News IN

(Medicago lupulina). Other foodplants which the larvae have accepted
in captivity include White clover (Trifolium repens), Daisy (Bellis
perennis), and various cultivated Aster spp.

There were several other rare moth species which were surveyed in
1997. The Barberry carpet (Pareulype berberata), was discovered at two
sites in Southern England. Also, continued survival was monitored for
two other “Species Recovery” moths, which had been previously re-
established: the Reddish buff moth (Ascometia caliginosa) and the
Black-veined moth (Siona lineata). The Reddish buff and Barberry
carpet are being reared in captivity by the Federation of Zoological
Gardens of Great Britain, and there is also a programme for the
propagation of its foodplant, Barberry (Berberis vulgaris), with a view
to replacing bushes which have been destroyed at key sites in the wild.
A meeting of the British Entomological & Natural History Society in
October 1997 provided a chance to survey the Southern chestnut
(Agrochola haematidea). It was then found at widely scattered sites in
the western half of the New Forest, Hampshire, despite having been
first found in the area only in the previous year. The first British record
was in 1990.

Other work, some of it supported by the national agencies, has
involved the monitoring and/or management of sites where known
colonies of rare moths occur. These species include the Fiery clearwing
(Bembecia chrysidiformis) in Kent, the Speckled footman (Coscinia
cribraria), the New Forest burnet (Zygaena viciae) in Argyll, the Rosy
Marsh moth (Eugraphe subrosea) in Wales and the Silky wave Udaea
dilutaria) on the Great Orme, also in Wales.

The news bulletin is accompanied by an up-dated directory to the
names and addresses of Butterfly Conservation Branch moth officers
and to the county moth recorders. A list of relevant publications and
reports in 1997 is also appended. Dr. Paul Waring can be contacted at:
1366 Lincoln Road, Peterborough PE4 OLS.

The Durham argus butterfly at Bishop Middleham, NE England

The Durham Wildlife Trust reports that habitat enhancement has been
carried out at its reserve at Bishop Middleham to benefit the nationally
important colony of the Durham argus (Aricia artaxerxes). The work
involves selective scrub clearance where the larval foodplant, Common
rockrose (Helianthemum chamaecistus) forms part of the ground flora.
Ian Waller of Butterfly Conservation is monitoring the butterfly
population so as to assess the effects of the management.

ke Number 27 * October 1998 11

Saproxylic flies at Ashridge Estate, SE England

In his latest report to the Joint Committee for the Conservation of
British Invertebrates, Dr. Keith Alexander of the National Trust notes
taae tie results of a survey of flies at the above ‘estate on the
Hertfordshire/Buckinghamshire border, were “astonishing”. Eleven
species of Red Data Book status and a further 22 Nationally Scarce
species were recorded. One species, a fungus gnat (Sciophila baltica,
proved to be new to Britain and a female specimen of a platypezid fly
was provisionally identified as a second British record of Agathomyia
cinerea, subject to confirmation of identification to species level, which
requires a male specimen.

Freshwater molluscs on properties of the National Trust in England

Another item of news in Keith Alexander’s report to the JCCBI was that
the Trust had identified a gap in its knowledge of freshwater molluscs
in its properties. With the help of funding from the Environment
Agency, some surveys were carried out last year at sites which had
previous records of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species or which
included grazing marsh - an important habitat for many species.

At Buscot Estate, Oxfordshire, a survey of the drain network in the
Thames floodplain failed to reveal any sign of the Thames Rams-horn
Gyraulus acronicus (BAP Long List), which had been recorded there in
1972. Slightly more success in following up an old record was achieved
at The Vyne, Hampshire, where the Wey Brook yielded a single valve
of the BAP Short List bivalve mollusc, Fine-lined pea-mussel (Pisidium
tenuilineatum). The brook was found to support large populations of
other mussels such as Painter’s mussel (Unio pictorum), despite
concerns that agricultural run-off may have been affecting water quality.

Near Winchelsea, East Sussex, the False orb pea mussel (Pisidium
pseudosphaerium, BAP Long List) was found in remarkably dense and
very extensive populations at two sites; Wickham manor and Crutches
Farm and also at Marsham Sewer, Fairlight. It was, however, noted that
the ditch systems appeared to be over-managed and that this problem
needed to be addressed.

Publications

Somerset Hoverflies by Ted and Dave Levy, published by Somerset
Wildlife Trust, 1998, 80pp, £6.00 plus P&P. This book, which has been
announced in Somerset Wildlife News, includes details and distribution

¢ )
12 Invertebrate Conservation News AR

maps of all the 200 species of hoverfly which have occurred in the
county of Somerset since the early 1880s. Eighteen of the species are
illustrated by colour photographs and others by line drawings, but
readers are advised to refer to British Hoverflies by Stubbs & Falk in-
order to identify species.

Wings: a journal of the Xerces Society ,
The Spring 1998 issue of Wings (Vol. 21, No. 1) included the following
articles:

Sylvia A. Earle: Why Care about Life in the Sea? - A superbly illustrated
article which addresses the importance of marine invertebrates in global
biodiversity. The author discusses the suspected over-fishing of pelagic
squid, krill and zooplankton, and the vulnerability of some marine
invertebrates which occur only in small restricted areas.

Clyde F.E. Roper: Tracking the Giant Squid: Mythology and Science
meet below the sea:

Jerry McCormick-Ray: Preserving the Temperate Reef: The Case of the
Eastern Oyster

Past UK Meeting

Nonsuch Open Space, Ewell, Surrey

As advertised in ICN 25, this meeting of the British Entomological &
Natural History Society took place on May 16th 1998. This proved to be
one of the warmest and sunniest days of the year, as the ensuing
summer was mostly cool and wet. Only a partial list of the invertebrates
recorded is available at the time of writing, but if the final lists reveal
anything very significant from a conservation point of view, this will be
reported in a future issue of ICN. In the meantime some notes from one
of the leaders (D. Lonsdale) and the local “host”, Miss Frances Wright,
may be of interest. 3

About a dozen people attended the meeting, including local
naturalists, members of the BENHS and a small contingent from Alton,
Hampshire. Three main areas were studied: Cherry Orchard Farm
(meadows and hedgerows), the site of the Banqueting House (trees
with grassy ground flora) and Warren Farm (rough grassland being
partly used for tree planting, with surrounding hedgerows). Large areas
of Nonsuch Park itself were of limited interest, as they consisted of

lawn-like mown swards.
a

a .

¢
AR Number 27 * October 1998 13

The management of the Banqueting House site, a raised area, was a
matter of some local discussion, as there was apparently some pressure
to remove some of the trees and to close-mow the grass. The trees
included cedars, probably Cedrus atlantica, yew (Taxus baccata),
English oak (Quercus robur), as well as seedlings of sycamore (Acer
pseudoplatanus) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior). There seemed little
reason to remove any of the oaks or the yew, as had been proposed,
although control of the sycamore seedlings seemed desirable. The
nationally notable tree-nesting ant Lasius brunneus, first found at the
site in 1993, was found in one of the cedars, and it was observed that
the workers were gathering honeydew from aphids lined up on ivy
shoots higher up the tree. A Lesser stag beetle, Dorcus parallelopipedus,
was found sheltering on the same tree, but was thought probably to
have emerged from a broken and partly decayed beech (Fagus
sylvatica) close to the site. Retention of the beech seemed important, as
there was little other dead wood in the immediate vicinity.

Among the many insects found at Warren Farm, one of the more
striking was the Stag beetle, Lucanus cervus, although only the dead
remains of a specimen were found near a large, three metre-high tree
stump. The stump itself, probably a long-dead elm (Ulmus sp.) was
riddled with larval boreholes which were probably too large to have
been anything other than those of the same beetle. However, the stump
had been badly burnt, probably by children setting fire to surrounding
ivy, and was in any case now exposed to the full rays of the sun. In
case the stump still has any deadwood value, the desirability of
providing some shading is being made known to the Woodland Trust,
who are managing the site.

CONTENTS
Excited fc Se a SR eRe ica a et NCSD e400 8 GT SA UN gC 1

News, Views and General information
Events-and' developments in’ Worcestershire, “WK... 9 ies ee eee te eee
Synthetic pyrethroidssheep: dist. saa nee te ess tesa teen TELS age Mac
Butterflies forthe New Millennium: recent progress:..... ise. aetereee ce ee -cchee
Code of conduct for collection: of fungi inthe WK cee ec ee
Urban development: greenfield versus brownfield Sites .........ecccecseseereeees
TheiCribby Award: for invertebrate COnSefVvaliOny<. 3:2. caee eee
the TCD -Annual Natural History Weekends sis aya eee ear ce ae

OV OW BR Ww OD KN

Sites and Species of interest
The Large heath butterfly at Otterbum, NE -Englanc.. 01 oo toe ne 7
Over-tidy beaches and the strandline beetle Nebria complandata .............0.. 8
British moths se cc Ge Wale AN 0 ee 9
The Durham argus butterfly at Bishop Middleham, NE England...........0........ 10
Saproxylic flies at Ashridge Estate: SK England: i005 2:c ee ener eee ii
Freshwater molluscs on properties of the National Trust in England ............ 11

Publications
Somerset Hoverflies ...... wd
Articles in “Wings”...

Past UK Meeting Sp
Nonsuch Open Space, Ewel

NOTICE
It is to be distinctly understood that all views, opinions, or theories, expressed in the pages of this

offered or sought, requests for help or information, are accepted as bona fide. Neither the Editor, the
Officers and Council of the Society, nor its Trustees, can be held responsible for any loss,
embarrassment or injury that might be sustained by reliance thereon.

© 1998. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 25th October 1998 by the Amateur Entomologists' Society
(Registered Charity No. 267430), from PO Box 8774, London SW7 5ZG.
Printed by Cravitz Printing Co. Ltd., 1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TA.

ease
| ae eae

Pine wt we we

mite oA op os E pears
COP v6 wee a. aie oe
Se sree

ween se oe oe

Pedanie snag -sope
fee

we

Fe on ro ages

belo oe eae a

ONS say
naw eeiewone

See
ST ea aera

pot hate

ee,
i
penne:

seve npt oe
wave

sia
ecm aelepan atta a

isemereawng oe : ;
Sonera. ‘ , cy aris panlie feel
i ; Pah creams
ieee : Pip wane
eat 3a Fate wlan sticoe cw eph
5 arr ret memes pe ke ee eer aren
Potee
agi *
reed aia eh 2 vadinee
om te i thant Bt oamomen ae,
anena ie ; dati daprenep
ster
Toad : Sern
a0 Omaet et ? :
aren esd aguen pen manetmnngens

2 a pan een
ages . en eke, ~ at anh
‘6 ah Metra te Seok :
wiser acerca
ones seca since gent oe pe ae ~
Oat ete.)
a li ~ nw otenien ng 5m
eae Ny Seems nw gme we 2
a a lot .
wa ly nnn ohana trae
~ ts eee, serene nan
iste meee re

a tes
7 aor :
$ ; ees
; Nar opomiam cee

UA, Rone
A Poa tine aA

Nomen een
Sp marae, at
ek ae 7
Aanaed a ho Newar nee a
: : peer
wins Tone

Citas woe
malar en ate nh
ot nee orth Satna
Bist enepenns
Mee eer : é
Es 4 Pomppnes
: : : pentane
Me nkoveanina engeaa
see ec ogee
Sng na

z : : merce toate

UU Nee u 3 — rorssssy Satie =

ae see eneae nang -
eae

on ae mae,

ay - : SW aew ia pe head erates Stns
eraptetaree : ; Pea ede : mont cee hae et Rebpetprscee ered peep are
tot G malting usp edeogm ve ‘ : nee
: ms Zigttgent torr
Peal fl eae pian i . erin ge MA Hama coh fen
Re eet UST epee ap. cares
seme : ; Store eam A 4 we
Bees Snighea ran aubasers
ete se pine
Fert EW Fneimem, Tar es theta a highs
Fem va, bla OP Fine ip anion, Botingine cae eft ca wake aed
Manas ges eran oat satemene fe er aaaeeare

wane

rane sti
Wana stead pero : V nado pteieaens ne
‘ : ; ‘ tise

yetanned abet
naa ae C
Sass benene
Sap wate fee ae a
ses porate arte
ata’

Sh tented aes