Invertebrate conservation news

Pe be

Invertebrate
Conservation

SNe recess

October 2008

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:
Position vacant

AES Conservation Committee
Dafydd Lewis
David Lonsdale
Peter May
Phil Wilkins

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

INVERTEBRATE
CONSERVATION |
NEWS

No. 57, October 2008

EDITORIAL

Five years ago, after high summer temperatures in the UK, the editorial
for ICN 42 mentioned weather-related fluctuations in invertebrate
populations. In the summer of 2008, sunshine and warm days were in
short supply in most parts of the UK, and the same was true in 2007.
Consequently, sun-loving invertebrates have reportedly been scarce,
despite the predicted trend towards warmer, drier summers. Following
a population crash in a particular species (for example, during a poor
summer), colonies at many sites recover rapidly but the species could
die out at other sites. Sites can be re-colonised, but only if there is a
source of incoming individuals. For this reason, the fragmentation and
isolation of habitats is thought to be a key factor in the regional or
national decline of many species, especially those that are not very
mobile. —

Habitat isolation can exacerbate the effects not only of unfavourable
events, but also of systematic changes in climate. In principle, any
species could respond to climate change by colonising regions which
have become climatically favourable, but such adaptation is hampered
if the species cannot disperse far enough to cross inhospitable terrain
between habitable sites.

As far as the UK is concerned, the general prediction for most regions
is that summers will become warmer and drier and that winters will
become milder and wetter. There is, however, also a tendency towards
greater extremes, some of which will go against the overall trend. Thus,
for example, chance local extinctions of sun-loving species during dull
summers are perhaps just as likely to occur as they have done
previously. Such species are, however, likely to benefit from the general

Invertebrate Conservation News

trend towards warmer summers, which enables them to colonise niches
where the micro-climate was previously too cool for them. The reverse
is likely to be true for species whose centres of distribution lie in cooler
parts of northern Europe.

For all species, the availability of niches beyond the confines of
localised habitats can be of key importance. In the relatively cool
climate of the UK, warmer summers are likely to increase the range of
niches that are suitable for warm-loving species, but such species
sometimes also require cool or moist niches during unusually hot
summers. An example is provided by Clive Bealey’s study of the
Silver-spotted skipper Hesperia comma at Porton Down, southern
England (see ICN 33)./In the hot,:dry summesz of 1995 the larval
foodplants were desiccated on the normally favourable warm
micro-sites, so that larval survival was favoured only on the cooler
north-facing slopes.

Recognition of habitat isolation as a problem has been slow to
influence conservation policies, but there is now more commitment (at
least in the UK) to ‘landscape-scale’ conservation than at the time of the
October 2003 ICN editorial. As a result, there have been various agri-
environment schemes, in which farmers are given incentives to protect
and restore habitats in the wider countryside. These schemes should
help to maintain and perhaps re-establish the geographic distributions
of species that have been declining. Such species might otherwise
become confined to a few sites, perhaps later undergoing national or
even global extinction.

Schemes for enhancing ‘connectivity’ between habitats are a welcome
development, but they could become increasingly difficult to promote
alongside the needs of a growing human population. The difficulty is
exemplified by the recent suspension of agricultural set-aside schemes
in the European Union. Although set-aside was not designed to help
conservation, it enabled various species to regain some of the
abundance that they enjoyed before widespread agricultural
intensification. Wherever plans for landscape-scale conservation can be
sustained, there will be a need to take account of the effects of climate
change, which is affecting the geographic ranges of many invertebrates.

Where natural processes of re-colonisation fail, there is sometimes a
case for re-establishing species artificially. This was recognised many
years ago in the UK by member-organisations of the umbrella group
now called Invertebrate Link. The group produced a code of conduct
for insect re-establishment in the 1980s. The code, which is currently

Number 57 © October 2008 3

being revised, sets out criteria by which proposed re-establishments can
be evaluated. It was drafted in the light of some controversy, since
there are divergent views on the subject. At one extreme, a laissez-faire
approach could encourage reckless releases of invertebrates, which
could be harmful in various ways. At the other extreme, a fundamental
Opposition to meddling in natural processes might fail to allow for the
fact that human land-use is inhibiting those same processes.

Climate change has implications not only for the conservation of
native invertebrates, but also for the control of invasive species.
Through worldwide human trade and travel, many invertebrate species
have been transported far beyond their natural regions of distribution.
Given a favourable climate, alien species can become established and
in some cases thrive sufficiently to threaten native fauna and flora or
the human economy. One well-known example is the Giant African
snail Achatina fulica, which has become a pest in many tropical
regions outside its native range. In some cases, unfavourable climates
have prevented alien species from thriving, but new problems could
emerge with climate change.

NEWS, VIEWS AND GENERAL INFORMATION

Review of protected species-list in the UK

As reported in ICN 56, a conclusion has been reached in the fourth
quinquennial review of the list of invertebrates protected under the
UK’s Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The only change is that, with
etfect from 6th April 2008, it has become a criminal offence
intentionally to kill, take or injure any wild-caught specimens of the
Roman snail Helix pomatia or to possess or offer them for sale. There
is, however, still a question regarding two burnet moths, the Slender-
Scotch Zygaena loti and the Talisker (or Narrow-bordered five-spot)
Zygaena lonicerae jocelynae, which were not added to the protected
list (Schedule 5) but might be added eventually if they are first listed in
Scotland, where their UK populations occur.

The fifth quinquennial review began in March 2008, with an initial
consultation of interested organisations. The government agency
responsible, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), is not
seeking to add any invertebrates to the existing list in Schedule 5, but is

Invertebrate Conservation News

recommending the removal of one species: the Essex Emerald moth
Thetidea smaragdaria. This species has not been seen in the wild since
1991, despite specific targeted searches of all known sites and despite
the fact that its larvae are not likely to be overlooked. Also, no captive
British stock remains for use in re-establishment.

Buglife — The Invertebrate Conservation Trust responded to the
consultation with some general comments about the consultation
process, which can be summarised as follows:

e If a species is no longer threatened by the activities covered in
Section 9, it should be de-listed.

e The consultation process needs to be long enough G.e. more than
three months), so that the societies can have a chance to discuss
proposals and to reach a consensus.

© The UK government ought to respond more promptly to the
recommendations, thus avoiding a repetition of the extreme delays
that occurred with the fourth Quinquennial Review.

Buglife also made some suggestions for amendments to Schedule 5,
under various clauses of Section 9 of the 1981 Act. These were as
follows:

Addition for full protection — ail parts of Section 9)
Bedstraw hawkmoth (Hyles gallii)
Streaked bombardier beetle (Brachinus sclopeta)

Addition to protect from sale only — Section 9(5)
Talisker burnet moth (Zygaena lonicerae jocelynae)
Slender scotch burnet moth (Zygaena loti scotica)

Addition to protect only from intentional or reckless damage to structures and
places used as shelter or protection — Section 9(4)(a)
Distinguished jumping spider (Sitticus distinguendus)
Saltmarsh short-spur beetle (Anisodactylus poeociloides)
Four-banded weevil wasp (Cerceris quadricincta)
Five-banded weevil wasp (Cerceris quinquefasciata)

Goat moth (Cossus cossus)

Noble chafer (Gnorimus nobilis)

Variable chafer (Gnorimus variabilis)

Narrow-headed ant (Formica exsecta)

Horrid ground weaver (Nothophantes horridus)

Mottled bee-fly (Thyridanthrax fenestratus)

Heath bee-fly (Bombylius minor)

Little whirlpool ramshorn snail (Anisus vorticulus)
White-faced darter (Leucorrhinia dubia)

Number 57 « October 2008 5

Retention of protection, but under Section 9(4)(a) only
Lagoon sand shrimp (Gammarus insensibilis)

De Folin’s lagoon snail (Caecum armoricum)
Lagoon sea slug (Tenellia adspersa)

Tentacled lagoon worm (Alkmaria romijni)

Starlet sea anemone (Nematostella vectensis)
Trembling sea mat (Victorella pavida)

Lagoon sand worm (Armandia cirrhosa)

Ivel’s sea anemone (Edwardsia ivelli)

Brackish hydroid (Pachycordyle navis)

Lesser silver water beetle (Hydrochara caraboides)
Bembridge beetle (Paracymus aeneus)

Rainbow leaf beetle (Chrysolina cerealis)

Removal from Schedule 5 entirely

Lagoon snail (Paludinella littorina)

Northern hatchet shell (Thyasira gouldi)

Essex emerald (Thetidia smaragdaria maritima) (already recommended by JNCC)

The JNCC seems to take the view that Schedule 5 is not the
appropriate instrument for protecting invertebrates from damage to
their places of shelter etc., since such protection is in principle covered
by laws designed to protect designated sites. This does not, however,
seem to work for various sites (e.g. certain very rich ‘brownfield’) sites,
which seem to fail to meet strict criteria for designation.

Czech entomologists arrested in India

In June this year Dr. Petr Svacha, an eminent coleopterist in the Czech
Academy of Sciences, was arrested near Darjeeling, West Bengal, India,
together with a fellow-entomologist, Emil Kucera, a Czech forest
official. They were accused of collecting invertebrates without a permit
in Singalila National Park, allegedly with the intention of selling certain
species on the Chinese medicine market.

On learning about the arrests, members of the international
entomological community raised a petition, which was widely
cnewlated on the Internet” Ihe plea was that the two-Czech
entomologists were engaged only in scientific work and had no
intention of breaking any laws. The authors of the petition stated that
they knew Dr. Svacha to be a world-renowned specialist on sawyer
beetle larvae and a serious academic and they pointed out that he has
been a senior scientist at the Institute of Entomology, Academy of
Sciences of Czech Republic (formerly “Czechoslovak Academy of
Sciences”) in Eeské Budijovice, Czech Republic, since 1985. He is also

6 Invertebrate Conservation News

the Managing Editor of the European Journal of Entomology, a
well-known scientific journal produced at his institute.

The authors of the petition suggested that Dr. Svacha had probably
failed to realise that he had entered a national park where collecting
insects was illegal without a permit under the Wildlife Protection and
Biodiversity Act. On this basis, and in view of Dr. Svacha’s reputation and
his physical frailty, they requested the authorities to show leniency. The
story took a further twist after the petition had been circulated. A
message, reportedly sent by Dr. Svacha from prison, stated that there was
no need to look for reasons and excuses why he and Emil Kuéera
collected specimens in the National Park, since they had never entered it.

During Dr. Svacha’s custody, he was evidently looking forward to the
opportunity to argue that he and his companion had not broken any
law. The case was, however delayed by a strike of court staff. A court
hearing eventually took place, at which Dr. Svacha was found guilty
and fined the equivalent of 240 pounds sterling. The outcome was far
worse for Mr Kucera, who was sentenced to three years in jail and fined
the equivalent of 720 pounds sterling. It seems also that their
equipment was confiscated. There is, however, a report that Mr Kucera
was allowed bail, pending an appeal.

There have been various cases in which bona fide Serum when
venturing abroad, have fallen foul of laws that are perhaps designed to
deter commercial collectors. In order to help avoid such occurrences, it
nowadays seems advisable for travellers to operate under the good
offices of a member of a bona fide institute in the country concerned.
This should help to ensure that no suspicion is brought to bear on
travellers. Such a liaison is, however, not always available to everyone
and might seem inappropriate in certain circumstances; for example,
when naturalists are abroad mainly for other purposes (e.g. family
holidays or conferences) and would like to collect specimens informally
if the opportunity arises. In Dr. Svacha’s case, officials reportedly
commented that he ought to have made arrangements with an Indian
colleague, rather than trying to collect specimens while visiting the
country as a tourist.

The arrests and the ensuing results of the court hearing have caused
concern amongst naturalists and other invertebrate biologists. A few of
the signatories to the petition have criticised countries with draconian
laws, which criminalise essentially law-abiding people for activities that
are not harmful to wildlife. The onus is, however, on individual
collectors to endeavour to find out which laws exist and*to obey them.

&
ww : Number 57 * October 2008 7

In this context, British field workers ought to be aware that there are
sites in Britain (including numerous Sites of Special Scientific Interest) at
which collecting any invertebrate without a permit is a punishable
offence. Such potential for prosecution under these site-related
provisions might surprise many field biologists, since there is a general
perception that the UK’s laws regarding the collection of invertebrates
are moderate and discriminating.

Any governments that are planning to introduce laws to protect
species would do well to study the Invertebrate Link document
“Statement on the appropriate role of legislation in controlling activities
likely to harm specified taxa of terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates,
with particular reference to taking and killing” (see ICN 56). The
statement, which is shortly to be published formally in the British
Journal of Entomology and Natural History, sets out a rational basis for
selecting species for legal protection.

e

om \)
‘ —$—

SITES AND SPECIES OF INTEREST

Crucifix ground beetle in eastern England

The Crucifix Ground beetle Panagaeus cruxmajor is one of the rarest
ground beetles in the UK. It has distinctive bright red markings on a
black background and it is used as a colourful ‘flagship species’ to
publicise dune and flood meadow wetland conservation and to
popularise ground beetle conservation. In the UK, it is listed as an
Endangered Red Data Book species and is also a Biodiversity Action Plan
Priority Species. It was considered a great prize by Victorian
entomologists but it was reasonably widespread during the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries. It later became confined to only a few
sites, apparently because of the development of scrub or coarse grassland
on its areas of habitat, which are grazed wet pastures or dune slacks.

After 1951, P. cruxmajor was found only at three UK sites; in flood

- meadows in the Lower Derwent Valley in Yorkshire, and in dune

systems at Tywyn Burrows in Dyfed and Saltfleet-by-Theddlethorpe in
Lincolnshire. Until then, it had been found with decreasing frequency
also at Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire, which had previously been one
of its strongholds. The news is that it has been recently re-discovered at
Wicken Fen, by Stuart Warrington, a National Trust Conservation

8 Invertebrate Conservation News

Adviser. This discovery comes as a welcome surprise, since other
entomologists, including the coleopterist Tony Drane, had searched for
the beetle at Wicken Fen over many years without success. Tony Drane
is quoted as saying that the species has probably survived undetected
in low numbers in the Fen alongside Wicken Lode. He points out that it
is one of a number of rare species in decline across the UK which
survive at Wicken Fen and which show the importance of this nature
reserve and the need to enlarge the reserve.

Citrus longhorn beetle alert in UK

As mentioned in JC’N 28, the ‘Asian longhorn beetle’ Anoplophora
glabripennis has become a serious pest in parts of the world where it
has been accidentally introduced. Its larvae burrow in the previously
sound wood of various tree species, eventually weakening branches so
much that mechanical failure can occur. Eradication measures include
the felling and burning of mature trees, partly to reduce risk to people
and property and partly to help reduce the spread of the beetle. As a
result, many thousands of affected trees have been cut down in the
USA and elsewhere (e.g. the Lombardia region of Italy).

The loss of trees is of serious concern in relation to the conservation
of other invertebrates that depend on trees for their habitats. It would
be of particular concern if ancient trees were to become involved, since
they often have exceptional value for biodiversity.

As far as the UK is concerned, both A. glabripennis and the similar A.
chinensis (the Citrus longhorn beetle; see ICN 49) are designated as
quarantine pests. The chances of the latter becoming permanently
established in the UK are, however, probably smaller, as it is favoured
by a warmer climate. This designation is intended to prevent the
importation of trees or timber products that harbour these beetles. In
recent years, however, both species have been discovered in the UK at
nurseries, at the premises of bonsai importers and in private gardens,
where trees have been received from east Asian exporters.

Unfortunately, a potentially major importation of A. chinensis seems to
have occurred recently in the UK. This has involved plants of Japanese
maple Acer palmatum, imported from China via the Netherlands and
distributed by mail order. Previous sightings of Anoplophora spp. in the
UK have been linked mainly to wooden packing materials, unconnected
with the horticultural trade, but the recent importation of A. chinensis is
one of several reported to have involved plants of maple species,
especially Acer palmatum and Trident maple A. buergerianum.
Imported bonsai apple trees (Walus spp.) have also been a source.

Number 57 ¢ October 2008

In addition to maples, apples and Citrus spp, many other kinds of tree
and shrub are suitable hosts for A. chinensis, including ash, beech,
birch, hawthorn, hazel, hibiscus, hornbeam, horse chestnut, mulberry,
oak, pear, plane, poplar, rose and willow.

So far, neither A. glabripennis nor A. chinensis are known to have
become established in Great Britain, despite recent findings of the latter
in Gloucestershire. Since, however, the current case involves a
potentially large number of mail order customers, it could be more
difficult to trace than the previous cases. Anyone who sees these
beetles in the UK is requested to trap them if possible and to notify the
local Plant Health and Seeds Inspector, whose contact details can be
found on the DEFRA website — http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/
senior.htm or telephone 01904 455174.

The two species are both large and distinctively patterned (21-37 mm
long, with variable white markings on a black background) and are
therefore unlikely to be mistaken for any native longhorn beetle. In A.
chinensis, the pale markings are sometimes bluish, rather than white.
While larva or pupae remain in the wood of the tree, there are no very
obvious signs of infestation. Their emergence holes, are large (6-11 mm
in diameter) but are sometimes below or just above ground level and can
therefore be overlooked. Other signs are less distinctive G.e. sawdust-like
frass, adult feeding damage on foliage petioles, scraped areas of bark and
oviposition slits in the bark); these indicate a need to examine the base
of the tree for the possible presence of the large emergence holes.

Images of the beetles can be found on the Plant Health section of the
DEFRA website, www.defra.gov.uk/planth/phindx.htm or at:
www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/insects/Anoplophora_malasiaca/ANOLM
A_images.htm. — j

Zebra mussel in the UK

~The Zebra mussel Driessena polymorpha, a native of freshwater areas
around the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, is a small black and white
striped freshwater bivalve, reaching up to 5 cm in length, which feeds by
filtering plankton from the surrounding water. It persists in waters that are
high in calcium and where the pH is greater than 7.5. It can tolerate low
salinity and reproduces best in water temperatures between 17 and 25°C.

It is an invasive species in the UK and is now placed in a high-risk
category in areas such as the eastern English county of Essex, having
become increasingly widespread and abundant since about the year
2000 (Aldridge et al., 2004). Although its rise in prevalence is recent, it

10 Invertebrate Conservation News

was recorded in England as long ago as 1824, having been introduced
with imported timber. It was then spreading across much of Europe
after the building of canals.

The Zebra mussel can threaten populations of native freshwater
bivalves and other filter feeders through competition for food in rivers,
canals and lakes. It sometimes forms very abundant colonies
(containing up to 100,000 individuals per square metre), which can
smother native freshwater bivalves, such the Depressed river mussel
Pseudanodonta complanata, which is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan |
Priority species. Fish populations can also be affected, not only because
Zebra mussel colonies compete with juvenile fish for food, but also
because they increase the clarity of the water by filtration, thus
favouring predators of the fish.

rd

In addition to the threats that Zebra mussels pose to native aquatic
fauna and flora, there are economic impacts. Dense colonies can clog
intake-pipes, drains and screens in installations such as power plants, fish
hatcheries and waterworks. These problems have necessitated the use of
expensive filtration or sterilisation systems, in some cases involving
chemical control with chlorine. The use of chlorine is environmentally
undesirable, especially since the mussels close their shells in response to
the chlorine and can then be killed only by prolonged contact. The
mussels can, however be killed by concentrations of salt below the level
which would stimulate defensive closure of the shell. Using this principle,
a control method has been developed so as to kill them without harming
most other forms of aquatic life.

In dense colonies, the mussels become very firmly attached to
surfaces by bundles of fibrous, tough strands (the byssus) which they
secrete. This helps to protect them against predation which, at lower
densities, can usefully be effected by animals such as fish crayfish, coot
and tufted ducks.

In an effort to help prevent the further spread of the Zebra mussel
through British water bodies, the Environment Agency is giving advice
to anglers, boat users, and sampling staff. Also, members of the public
are encouraged to report new findings to the Environment Agency, tel:
08708 506 506, e-mail enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk

Reference

Aldridge, D.C., Elliott, P. and Moggridge, G.D. (2004). The recent and rapid spread of the
zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in Great Britain. Biological Conservation 199,
253-261.

Number 57 ¢ October 2008

RESEARCH NOTES

Threats to corals in relation to ‘climate engineering’

In 2004, a report entitled Coral Reefs & Global Climate Change:
Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef
Ecosystems, was published by the Pew Center in the USA. The report
stressed that coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse
ecosystems on Earth, providing vital habitat to numerous species as
well as economic benefits to society in the form of fishing and tourism.
The authors, Joan Kleypas and Robert Buddenheimer, warned that
corals are being harmed not only by increasingly high temperatures,
but also by the increasing concentration of dissolved CO2, which makes
the water more acid and thus inhibits the ability of the corals and
associated organisms to accrete calcium carbonate for reef formation.
This problem is adding to the other factors that are harming coral reefs.

Corals and other calcifying organisms, such as coccolithophores, can
flourish in relatively shallow, warm waters, where calcium carbonate
(CaCOs) is readily precipitated to form shells and skeletons. This
process is inhibited beyond a certain depth, at which the combination
of lower temperature and higher pressure makes CaCO; more soluble.
Reef formation is restricted to increasingly shallow waters if an
increased concentration of dissolved CO: makes the water more acid.
On the other hand, an increase in temperature has the opposite effect,
and so the combined effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and as an
acidifier are complex.

Following the Pew report, further research has revealed that coral
reefs could be affected more severely by acidification than was
previously thought. This is because reef formation depends not only on
the corals themselves but also on associated crustose coralline algae,
which appear to be more sensitive than the corals. (Kuffner et al.,
2008). Not only do these algae contribute to the accumulation of
CaCOs; they also help the cementation of otherwise loose coral
fragments and they provide niches for the setthement of coral larvae.

The research involved the experimental rearing of reef organisms in
outdoor tanks of seawater, while testing the effects of acidifying the
water to the level which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change has predicted for the year 2100. The result was a 92% decrease
‘in the area which the crustose coralline algae covered in the tanks. The
area covered by non-calcifying fleshy algae increased by 52%. The
same might not happen in coral reefs, where more complex interactions
between organisms operate, but the study provides a stark warning of
possible things to come.

12 Invertebrate Conservation News

Since the medium-term prospects for controlling greenhouse gas
emissions do not look good, various campaigners have advocated
schemes for removing CO. from the atmosphere. One such scheme
would involve fertilising seawater with iron, which exists at very low
natural concentrations in extensive parts of the oceans. The iron would
stimulate algal photosynthesis, thus increasing the uptake of CO: from
the atmosphere. The increased algal biomass would provide an
enhanced habitat for calcifying organisms, which should in principle
lock up the carbon as CaCOs, which can eventually become
incorporated into limestone and other sedimentary rocks.

Advocates of ocean fertilisation point out that it occurs naturally due
to deposition of volcanic dust. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the
Philippines in 1991 is estimated to have deposited 40,000 tonnes of
iron-containing minerals into the world’s oceans. This is said to have
accounted for a temporary decline in the concentration of atmospheric
carbon dioxide, due to uptake by an enhanced population of algae and
other organisms. On the other hand, there are concerns that fertilisation
could cause major problems, such as the stimulation of toxic algal
blooms. Due to complex processes, there could even be an increased
rate of ocean acidification which would make matters worse, rather
than better, for corals and their dependent organisms.

Reference

Kuffner, I.B., Andersson, A.J., Jokiel, P.L., Rodgers, K.S., and Mackenzie, F.T., (2008).
Decreased abundance of crustose coralline algae due to ocean acidification. Nature
Geoscience 1, 114-117.

Brownfield studies in the Czech Republic

Naturalists in the UK have long been aware of the value of old quarries
for invertebrates and other wildlife. They provide a range of habitats
which are elsewhere associated with features such as soft rock cliffs.
These habitats are destroyed if, as often happens, the land is ‘restored’
to some other use. It is interesting to see some new research data from
the Czech Republic, which provide support for the conservation of
habitats in quarries, while also providing an international perspective
on brownfield issues.

The authors, based at the University of South Bohemia, and at the
Institute of Entomology, Czech Academy of Sciences, cite other studies
that have been undertaken in limestone quarries in relatively warm
regions, showing evidence that such sites can harbour a substantial
proportion of species diversity formerly associated with traditional rural

Number 57 « October 2008 13

landscapes. Their study involved quarries with an acidic substrate in a
relatively cool upland climate. Using pitfall traps, they surveyed the
spider fauna in three quarries in a piedmont region in the south west of
the Czech Republic. They found more species per trap in adjoining
semi-natural sites, but the traps in the quarries contained just as many
endangered species. Also, there were certain endangered species that
were found in the quarries only.

Generally, the quarries contained species that prefer lighter and more
Open vegetation and that are regarded as specialist pioneers of early
successional habitats, which are increasingly rare in modern landscapes.
Onmeaverage, the quarry Specialist species had more restricted
distributions in the Czech Republic than those found outside the
quarries. The authors suggest that, in order to conserve such species,
quarries should be allowed to undergo a natural succession, rather than
being reclaimed by engineering.

Reference

Tropek, R. & Konvicka, M. (2007). Can quarries supplement rare xeric habitats in a
piedmont region? Spiders of the Blansky les Mts., Czech Republic. Land Degradation &
Development, 19, 104-114.

PAST UK MEETINGS

Royal Entomological Society: Annual Meeting,

Plymouth, 2-5 September

Dafydd Lewis, a member of the AES Conservation Committee,
presented a poster at the 2008 annual meeting of the Royal
Entomological Society. The poster was entitled “Joined-up entomology —
working together for insect conservation and the next generation of
entomologists’ and was thus in the spirit of the conference held by
Invertebrate Link in London in November 2006. The poster showed
how the AES is working to encourage new generations in various ways,
including work with affiliated societies and collaborative events for
young entomologists at venues such as the London Natural History
Museum, National Trust properties and the Royal Horticultural Society’s
Garden at Wisley.

EDITORTALD oe ss ued ths ae RRS ONS CTE Se 1

NEWS, VIEWS AND GENERAL INFORMATION

Review of protected species-listum' the WK iis in ei eee eee 3

Czech entomologists ‘arrested ain ImGiay,: 4. eet aac eee eee 5
SITE AND SPECIES OF INTEREST

Crucifix: ground! beetle: ineasterm England. eee nee ‘ 7.

Citrus longhorn beetle alent in" WK i Nae ee eee 8

Zebta mussel inthe sWK sacred uae he eh oe 9
RESEARCH NOTES

Threats to corals in relation to ‘climate engineering’ ...................... 11

Brownfield’ studies im the €zech Republica ieee eee eee 12
PAST UK MEETINGS

Royal-Entomological Society: Annual Meeting .........0:4.. cme. .ccteceners 5)

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.

© 2008. The Amateur Entomologists' Society.
(Registered Charity No. 267430)
All rights reserved.

Published 25th October 2008 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.