Ponds in Norfolk: Establishing the Feasibility of Determining Important Pond Areas in the

County from Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (NBIS) Data.

Pingo on the Great Eastern Pingo Trail, Stowbedon Common, Norfolk

Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service, R301 County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, Norfolk NR1 2DH

Lizzy Carroll

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Environment Agency in funding this project.

Report production: July 2009

1. Introduction: 1.1. PONDS IN NORFOLK The widely accepted definition of a pond, used by all UK national surveys involving ponds over the last 10-15 years is: ‘a body of standing water between 1m2 and 2 hectares in area, which [usually]

holds water for at least four months of the year’.

Norfolk has one of the highest densities of ponds in the UK (Wood et al. 2003 cited in Hughes et al. 2008). Prince (1962) calculated that there were 27015 pits and ponds in Norfolk, with 21006 of them containing water. In the past, hollows have been created by people digging for “marl, flint, lime, sand, gravel and brick-earth, and to provide watering holes for livestock” across Norfolk (Walmsley 2009). Two areas in Norfolk particularly known for their ponds are the South Norfolk Claylands and the pingos of the Brecks. Calculations suggest that the South Norfolk Claylands area has almost three times the national average pond density (Walmsley, 2004). The Norfolk pingos (generally found in the eastern fen margins and in valleys in the Brecks) are thought to have been formed at the end of the last period of glaciation, left when the ground ice melted (Walmsley 2009). It has been shown that even small ponds often support species-rich communities (Oertli et al. 2002 cited in Walmsley 2009). Pingos in particular often contain a wide range of aquatic plant species, and outstanding invertebrate fauna, with many Red Data Book species (partly attributed to the long-term stability of these habitats) (Walmsley 2009). For example, it was found that four of the best-known systems of pingos in Norfolk (Thompson Common, Foulden Common, East Watton Common and East Harling Common) support 125 water beetle species between them (Foster 1993 cited in Walmsley 2009). 1.2. IMPORTANT AREAS FOR PONDS (IAPS) The concept of Important Areas for Ponds (IAPs) is a Pond Conservation initiative to “raise awareness of geographic regions that support ponds of national or international biodiversity importance” (Keeble et al. 2009). The overall aim is that networks of particularly important ponds and the biodiversity that they support are identified and that these can be used to “focus strategies for pond monitoring, protection and appropriate management and creation.” (Keeble et al. 2009). Keeble et al. (2009) state that the definition for an IAP is:

‘a geographical area that supports an important concentration of Priority Ponds’

Criteria concerning Priority Ponds are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Criteria for determining Priority Ponds (taken from Keeble et al. 2009):

Criterion 1 Habitats of high conservation importance. Ponds that meet criteria under Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive.

Criterion 2 Species of high conservation importance. Ponds supporting Red Data Book species, Biodiversity Action Plan species, species fully protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act Schedule 5 & 8, Habitats Directive Annex II species, a Nationally Scarce wetland plant species, or 3 Nationally Scarce aquatic invertebrate species.

Criterion 3 Exceptional assemblages of key biotic groups. Ponds supporting exceptional populations or numbers of key species. Based on (i) criteria specified in guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs (at present only amphibians and dragonflies), and (ii) exceptionally rich sites for plants or inverts (i.e. supporting 30 or more wetland plant species or 50 or more aquatic macroinvertebrate species).

Criterion 4 Ponds of high ecological quality. Ponds classified in the top PSYM category (“high”) for ecological quality (PSYM score greater than or equal to 75%).

Criterion 5 Other important ponds. Individual ponds/groups of ponds with a limited geographic distribution recognised as important due to their age, rarity of type or landscape context e.g. pingos.

The basic method used by Pond Conservation to determine Important Areas for Ponds can be summarised in four steps:

1. Define Priority Pond criteria based on the national BAP guidelines. 2. Collate pond biotic, species and assemblage data. 3. Evaluate data against Priority Pond criteria. 4. Group Priority Ponds geographically to determine Important Areas for

Ponds. One of the priority actions of the Norfolk Pond Habitat Action Plan 2010 is to use this methodology to identify Important Areas for Ponds in Norfolk. 2. Aims of this report:

• To map ponds in Norfolk using MasterMap data.

• To determine how accurate ‘desk study’ mapping is compared to other methods of surveying for ponds.

• To ascertain whether the species data held by Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (NBIS) is sufficient to be able to use it to determine Important Areas for Ponds using the methodology set out by Pond Conservation.

• To identify where and what further pond surveying effort is needed.

3. Methods: 3.1. POND MAPPING All GIS work throughout this project was undertaken using MapInfo. 3.1.1 Selecting the Ponds A search was made of MasterMap data for the words ‘pond’ and ‘ponds’. These were converted to a point feature and a 20m buffer was created around each point, in order that any features in the Inland Water layer (which included water bodies such as ponds, rivers and drainage ditches) intersecting that buffer might be selected. Buffers of 5m and 10m were tried but, on visual inspection, were deemed too small to intersect a sufficient number of ponds. In order to remove any unwanted water bodies such as drains which had been selected due to their close proximity to labelled ponds, any inland water bodies intersecting the word ‘drain’ or ‘drains’ were deleted. While this method was successful to a degree, many drains still remained (such as where the ‘drain’ label was situated near to the water body rather than actually intersecting it). Therefore another method was employed, calculating the ‘roundness’ of the inland water body, in order to be able to eliminate the very long and thin drains. The following formula was used in order to determine roundness: Roundness = (Perimeter2)/(4πArea) The resulting ratios were usually examined in relation to the actual shape of the water body in order to determine a suitable cut off point beyond which the water body could be deleted, where we were confident that while the majority of drains would be removed, a minimal number of ponds would be lost. A value of 10 was determined to be a suitable cut-off point, and any selected water body with a roundness ratio of more than 10 was deleted. 3.1.2 Selecting the Moats Moats were also included in this analysis, as they act in the same way as ponds in terms of habitat. A layer of historic moats was obtained and a selection was performed where the Inland Water layer intersected with the Moats layer in order to remove any moats that were now dry. The resulting selection was visually inspected and drainage ditches were removed. 3.1.3 Combining the Layers The layer of ponds and the layer of moats, resulting from the above processes were combined into an overall ‘Ponds’ layer, and the layer was ‘cleaned’ in order to delete any duplications. 3.2. EVALUATING MAPPING SUCCESS (GROUND-TRUTHING) 3.2.1 Using Google Maps The next stage of analysis was to determine how successful this desk-based mapping methodology had been. This was first attempted using the satellite view of Google Maps. Fifteen small sections (approx 1km x 1km) were selected from MasterMap at random, ensuring all of the varying soil types throughout Norfolk were sampled. In order to be able to determine the same

area on Google Maps, the sections chosen had prominent features (such as churches, farms, road intersections or woodland corners) at each corner. The area was examined carefully on Google Maps and the number of ponds observed was noted. This was then compared to the number of ponds mapped using the desk based pond-mapping method described above. 3.2.2 Using Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan Project A map of one of the areas surveyed for the Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan Project (which included pond mapping) was compared to the Ponds layer created for this report. The number of ponds plotted by one method and missed by the other were counted. 3.2.3 Using the South Norfolk Claylands Parish Pond Project Data for the report ‘South Norfolk Claylands Project – Biodiversity Audit of Parish Ponds’ run by Andrina Walmsley and Norfolk Wildlife Services in 2004 were also used for ground-truthing. Ponds surveyed during the Claylands project were plotted and overlaid on the Pond map created in this project. Differences in the number of ponds found by each project were noted for each parish. 3.2.4 Field Ground-Truthing Thompson and Stowbedon Commons (on the Great Eastern Pingo Trail) were chosen as the location for ground-truthing, as they showed up as a pond hotspot and therefore a number of ponds could be checked in a short space of time. A map showing the ponds mapped by the desk-based was taken to the site. Mapped ponds were ticked off on the map as they were observed, and any observed ponds not mapped were added to the map. Differences in the number of ponds found by field ground-truthing and those already mapped were noted. 3.3 DETERMINING POND HOTSPOTS A simplified form of density mapping was used to locate pond hotspots by plotting a count of ponds within each 1km grid square across the county. The resulting colour-coded map highlights hotspots, where high numbers of ponds are located within a small area. 3.4. EVALUATING NBIS DATA IN RELATION TO IMPORTANT AREAS FOR PONDS The method used followed as closely as possible that used for determining Priority Ponds in the Important Areas for Ponds document (Keeble et al. 2009). The five criteria for priority ponds in the document are:

1. Habitats of high conservation importance 2. Species of high conservation importance 3. Exceptional assemblages of key biotic groups 4. Ponds of high ecological quality 5. Other important ponds

In practice, the main criterion focussed on was criterion 2 due to the type and quantity of data held by NBIS (see Discussion).

The Recorder 6 database was searched for records of Red Data Book species, Biodiversity Action Plan species, Wildlife & Countryside Act Schedule 5 & 8 species, Habitats Directive Annex II species and nationally scarce plants (wetland plants as defined by the list in the PSYM Manual, instead of from the National Pond Survey field recording list used in the original method) and invertebrates (in the following groups: flatworms, leeches, snails, crustaceans, alderflies, mayflies, stoneflies, water bugs, water beetles, caddis flies). Only records from 1988 onwards were extracted (as in the original method).These were then edited to include only freshwater aquatic species. Bat, water vole, otter and grass snake records were only included if the record was specifically from a pond. Crucian Carp were also added to the list as a locally important species (any records specifying they were from rivers or lakes were removed). The lists were combined to form a final list of freshwater aquatic species of high conservation concern. The number of records for each species held by NBIS with a grid reference of 8-figures or more was noted, along with the total number of records for each species. This allowed us to look at the proportion of such records that could be accurately located to a particular pond. In order to determine whether the species records with a spatial reference of 8 or 10 figures corresponded with pond hotspots in Norfolk, they were plotted over the pond hotspot map. The process was repeated for any species with over 100 records with an 8 or 10 figure grid reference in the NBIS database. 4. Results: 4.1. POND MAPPING A total of 21222 water bodies across Norfolk which were regarded as ponds from the method described earlier were mapped and can be seen in Figure 1.

Fig

ure

1. M

ap d

isp

layin

g a

ll of th

e p

onds w

ith

in t

he c

ou

nty

bou

ndary

of N

orf

olk

(bla

ck lin

e)

as d

ete

rmin

ed b

y t

he d

esk-b

ased p

ond

mapp

ing m

eth

odo

logy d

escribed in t

his

report

.

Po

nd

s in

No

rfo

lk

© Crown copyright.

All rights reserved.

100019340. 2010

4.2. EVALUATING MAPPING SUCCESS 4.2.1 Using Google Map In 11 of the 15 1km x 1km squares examined, more ponds were identified using the desk-based mapping method than from Google Maps. This was often where ponds were particularly small and/or under trees and therefore may have been obscured on the satellite view. In 3 squares the same numbers of ponds were identified and only in one instance were more ponds found on Google Maps than from the mapping method in this report. 4.2.2 Using Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan Project When a map of an area surveyed for the Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan Project was compared to the desk-based Ponds layer created on MapInfo, it was found that the two were largely similar, although there were 14 ponds mapped on the Greater Norwich map that did not feature on the desk-based version and 39 ponds that were mapped on the desk-based layer that had not been picked up and mapped during the Greater Norwich ground survey. 4.2.3 Using the South Norfolk Claylands Parish Pond Project Table 2 shows the results of comparing the ponds found during the South Norfolk Claylands Parish Pond Project fieldwork and the ponds mapped in this study. Table 2. Results of comparing the results of our desktop mapping exercise with the results of the South Norfolk Claylands Parish Ponds Project run by Andrina Walmsley and Norfolk Wildlife Services in 2004.

Parish Present on Ponds layer, not

in Claylands Project

Present on Ponds layer,

recorded as ‘Not Extant’ or ‘Dry’

by the Claylands Project

Mapped by the Claylands

Project, not on the Ponds layer

Swardeston 6 8 3 Mulbarton 16 7 7 Poringland 18 4 15

Saxlingham Nethergate

43 9 5

Wacton 14 2 3 Total 97 30 33 4.2.4 Field Ground-Truthing Twenty ponds mapped using the method described in this report were observed during field ground-truthing at Thompson and Stowbedon Commons. Five ponds containing (at least some) water were observed on the ground that had not been mapped, and the same number of ‘probable ponds’ (hollows that contained no water but contained plants such as rushes and Typha sp., suggesting that they were ponds in the recent past). Unfortunately, due to the thick vegetation and low water levels it was not possible to

determine the number of ponds that had been mapped but that were not present on the ground. 4.3. DETERMINING IMPORTANT AREAS FOR PONDS Pond hotspots (areas with a high number of ponds) can be seen in Figure 2, where the blue colour indicates lower numbers of ponds and yellow a higher number per 1km2 (the hotspots).

Fig

ure

2.

Ma

p s

ho

win

g t

he

num

ber

of

ponds f

ou

nd w

ithin

each

1km

2.

Nu

mb

er

of

ponds d

ete

rmin

ed

by t

he

desk-b

ased p

ond

ma

pp

ing

meth

odo

logy d

escribe

d in t

his

report

.

Po

nd H

ots

po

ts in N

orf

olk

© Crown copyright.

All rights reserved.

100019340. 2010

4.4. EVALUATING NBIS DATA IN RELATION TO IAPS NBIS holds records on 129 freshwater aquatic species of conservation concern which could be found in ponds in Norfolk, totalling 5411 records. Of these, only 57 species (44% of the total) had any grid references more accurate than 6-figure, and only 2 species (Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) and Shining Ram’s Horn Snail (Segmentina nitida)) had over 100

records of a suitable accuracy (8 or 10 figure grid reference) to allow them to potentially be located to a particular pond. Less than half of the records of these two species held by NBIS (Great Crested Newt 26%, Shining Ram’s Horn Snail 47%) were sufficiently detailed. All of the species records and the accuracy of their spatial references are summarised in Appendix 1. It can be seen from the map in figure 3 that the records held by NBIS of freshwater aquatic species of conservation concern are very patchy across the county and don’t match up with pond hotspots. This is even more of the case for Great Crested Newt records (fig 4) and records of Shining Ram’s Horn Snail (fig 5).

Fig

ure

3. T

he n

um

ber

of

po

nds p

er

1km

2 in N

orf

olk

with r

ecord

s o

f fr

esh

wate

r aqu

atic s

pecie

s o

f co

nserv

atio

n c

oncern

held

by

NB

IS, a

nd h

avin

g a

sp

atial re

fere

nce o

f at

least 8-f

igure

s, show

ing t

hat

the r

ecord

s h

eld

do n

ot corr

ela

te w

ith p

ond

hots

pots

Po

nd H

ots

po

ts a

nd S

pe

cie

s R

eco

rds in

No

rfolk

© Crown copyright.

All rights reserved.

100019340. 2010

Fig

ure

4. T

he n

um

ber

of

po

nds p

er

1km

2 in N

orf

olk

with r

ecord

s o

f G

rea

t C

reste

d N

ew

ts h

eld

by N

BIS

with

a s

patia

l re

fere

nce o

f at le

ast 8-f

igure

s, sh

ow

ing t

hat th

e r

ecord

s h

eld

do

not

corr

ela

te w

ith p

ond h

ots

pots

thro

ugh

out

the c

ounty

.

Po

nd H

ots

po

ts a

nd G

rea

t C

reste

d N

ew

t R

eco

rds in

No

rfo

lk

© Crown copyright.

All rights reserved.

100019340. 2010

Fig

ure

4. T

he n

um

ber

of

po

nds p

er

1km

2 in N

orf

olk

with r

ecord

s o

f S

hin

ing R

am

’s H

orn

Sna

il he

ld b

y N

BIS

with a

spatia

l re

fere

nce o

f at le

ast 8-f

igure

s, sh

ow

ing t

hat th

e r

ecord

s d

o n

ot corr

ela

te w

ith p

on

d h

ots

pots

thro

ugh

out

the c

ounty

Po

nd H

ots

po

ts a

nd S

hin

ing

Ra

m’s

Ho

rn S

na

il R

eco

rds in

No

rfo

lk

© Crown copyright.

All rights reserved.

100019340. 2010

5. Discussion: 5.1. POND MAPPING It is clear from this study that there are a huge number of ponds in Norfolk, particularly in the South Norfolk Claylands and the Breckland pingos. Several drawbacks with the method used for pond mapping were noted as it was being implemented. For example, garden ponds, while being a particularly important wildlife resource, and often containing protected species such as Great Crested Newts, were not included in the study as they are not found on MasterMap. The method of selecting ponds from the Inland Water layer relied on those ponds having a label of ‘Pond’ or ‘Ponds’ within 20m of them. Any which did not would not have been picked up using this method. However, from visual inspection, it was decided that the number of ponds likely to have been missed was acceptably small. From visual inspection it became clear that there were occasional sections of drains or rivers that remained in the ‘ponds’ layer. These are sections with labelled ponds nearby and which are truncated into short sections by e.g. bridges and were therefore ‘round’ enough to not be deleted. The accuracy of using this desktop based method for mapping ponds has been assessed by various methods and in most cases it was found that the desk-based method of mapping ponds using MasterMap data had over-estimated the number of ponds by varying amounts. The field ground-truthing method was unable to determine whether over-estimation had occurred due to the field conditions where water levels were particularly low and ponds were often hidden from view by thick vegetation and could not be accessed. However it was found from field ground-truthing that the majority of ponds observed (at least those close to the path) had been mapped by the desktop based method, and it is not unlikely that there were some ponds on the site that were mapped but were no longer extant. Over-estimation was found to a lesser extent using the Google Map ground-truthing method. Using Google Maps to determine the number of ponds in an area was difficult, particularly as many of the ponds were obscured by trees or other vegetation. This probably resulted in an under-estimation of pond numbers. Very small ponds may also have been missed due to the resolution of Google Maps. Over-estimation was found to the greatest extent by comparing with the South Norfolk Claylands Parish Project, where the MasterMap data mapping found 127 ponds that the Claylands Project did not pick up. There could be a number of reasons for this however, including the fact that the South Norfolk Claylands have a particularly high density of ponds and it would therefore be easy to overlook some on the ground. The Claylands project was also run in 2004, so over the past six years the status of some of the ponds they surveyed may have changed (e.g. some of the ponds they recorded as ‘dry’ may not be now) and new ponds could potentially have been created.

5.2. DETERMINING PRIORITY PONDS AND IAPS Of the five criteria (Table 1) set out by Pond Conservation for determining Priority Ponds, NBIS does not hold the information required for criteria 1, 4 or 5. NBIS also holds insufficient records for criterion 3. In terms of part (i), the number of dragonfly records held is low. While there are 102 records for Norfolk Hawker (Aeshna isosceles), which is one of the species highlighted in the guidelines for selecting biological SSSIs, only 8 of these are recorded with an 8- or 10-figure grid reference, and none of these eight are breeding records (which is also specified in the SSSI guidelines as being necessary). Of the natterjack toad (Epidalea calamita) records, none have a sufficiently accurate grid reference to enable them to be located to a specific pond, and the ‘count’ data for all of the amphibian records (which is not a required field for people submitting records to NBIS) is insufficient to determine whether any ponds would classify as Priority Ponds based on the amphibian SSSI selection criteria. There are insufficient wetland plant or aquatic invertebrate records to be able to use part (ii). In terms of criteria 2, the greatest problems encountered in trying to work out which ponds were Priority Ponds were:

• a lack of records of freshwater aquatic species overall, and

• a particular lack of sufficiently detailed spatial references or location information for those records held to enable them to be located to a specific pond.

Norfolk has a lot of wetland habitat other than ponds (for example the Broads) and this fact, combined with a lack of detailed spatial information for most of the records makes it impossible to tell which records are from ponds and which are from the Broads, rivers, drains etc. Species were picked simply for being freshwater aquatic species and are therefore not necessarily specialised to ponds. Many of the records located towards the east of the county (see fig 3) were probably mainly from the Broads rather than ponds. Even records with 8-figure spatial references were difficult to tie down to a specific pond. It was specified in the Pond Conservation IAP methodology that for bat, water vole, otter and grass snake records, only those specifying that they originated in a pond were included. The same method was adopted here, but very few of the records specified whether the specimen was seen in a pond or elsewhere, therefore the majority of records of these taxa were not included. 6. Conclusions: The desk-based mapping method for ponds tended to over-estimate pond numbers, but was a much easier method to use than field surveying for ponds as it avoids problems such as restricted access and visibility. NBIS pond data is insufficient to employ the Pond Conservation IAP methodology due to a lack of records from ponds with sufficiently detailed spatial referencing.

Priorities for future work:

• Records of pond plants, invertebrates and amphibians must be recorded with a spatial reference of at least an 8-figure accuracy (preferably 10-figure) when pond surveys are conducted in order for the record to be located to a specific pond.

• Pond surveys should particularly focus on the hotspots highlighted in this report - in particular the South Norfolk Claylands, and the Breckland pingos. Important Areas for Ponds are likely to be found in these regions, and improved data collection could determine these areas which can then be protected and enhanced, as well as highlighting areas of ponds in need of extra management to improve their biodiversity value.

• More data on dragonfly species is required – these are species used in determining SSSIs and therefore they are also very important in determining Priority Ponds.

• Other aquatic invertebrates are also woefully under represented on the NBIS database, and steps should be taken to address this.

7. References:

• Hughes M, Sayer C & Davidson T (2008). Conservation Value of Non-Broads Lakes in Norfolk. UCL Environmental Change Research Centre Research Report #125.

• Keeble H, Williams, P, Biggs, J & Athanson M (2009). Important Areas for

Ponds (IAPs) in the Environment Agency Southern Region. Pond Conservation.

• Prince HC (1962). Pits and ponds in Norfolk. Erdkunde. Archiv fur wissenschaftliche Geographie Band XVI, Lfg. 1, Bonn.

• Walmsley A (2004). South Norfolk Claylands Project – Biodiversity Audit of Parish Ponds. Norfolk Wildlife Services.

• Walmsley A (2009). Norfolk Pingos; their Distribution and Condition. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists Society 42(1): 11-25.

Appendices: Appendix 1. Summary of the freshwater aquatic species records held in the NBIS database, and the accuracy of their spatial references.

Species No. with 10fig

spatial refere-

nce

No. with 8fig

spatial referen-

ce

No. with 6fig

spatial refere-

nce

No. with less than 6fig

spatial referen-

ce

Total Records

Total Records with 8 fig

spatial reference or better

Maidenhair Fern

Adiantum capillus-veneris

1 1 0

Norfolk Hawker

Aeshna isosceles

8 50 44 102 8

Agabus striolatus

1 12 11 24 1

Agabus undulatus

3 15 18 0

Agrypnia picta 1 1 1

Anasimyia interpuncta

1 1 0

Anopheles algeriensis

24 24 24

Anticheta brevipennis

1 3 4 1

Water Vole Arvicola terrestris

13 30 43 0

Baetis niger 1 1 0

Bagous lutosus 1 3 4 0

Bagous puncticollis

3 3 0

Lesser Water Plantain

Baldellia ranunculoides

1 25 26 1

Bembidion quadripustulatum

2 2 0

Bidessus unistriatus

5 5 0

Flat-Sedge Blysmus compressus

1 13 14 0

Common Toad

Bufo bufo 1 1 61 52 115 2

Narrow Small-Reed

Calamagrostis stricta

3 4 7 0

Crucian Carp

Carassius carassius

8 1 9 0

Fibrous Tussock-Sedge

Carex appropinquata

11 1 38 50 11

Lesser Tussock-Sedge

Carex diandra 18 18 0

Cercyon granarius

2 4 6 0

Hedgehog Stonewort

Chara aculeolata

1 3 1 5 1

Baltic Stonewort

Chara baltica 3 3 0

Convergent Stonewort

Chara connivens

1 1 0

Lesser Bearded Stonewort

Chara curta 1 1 2 1

Intermediate Stonewort

Chara intermedia

2 2 0

Hedgehog Stonewort

Chara pedunculata

3 2 5 0

Rugged Stonewort

Chara rudis 3 3 0

Cowbane Cicuta virosa 3 1 35 39 3

Variable Damselfly

Coenagrion pulchellum

5 37 44 86 5

Colobaea pectoralis

1 1 0

Galingale Cyperus longus 4 4 0

Narrow-Leaved Marsh-Orchid

Dactylorhiza traunsteineri

23 23 0

Dichetophora finlandica

2 2 0

Dolichopus laticola

12 6 18 12

Fen Raft Spider

Dolomedes plantarius

1 1 2 0

Reed beetle

Donacia aquatica

1 2 3 0

Crested Buckler-Fern

Dryopteris cristata

23 28 30 81 23

Dytiscus dimidiatus

1 6 3 10 1

Enochrus isotae

34 59 93 0

Enochrus nigritus

4 2 6 12 4

Natterjack Toad

Epidalea calamita

33 10 43 0

Erioptera meijerei

37 1 38 37

Erotesis baltica 3 3 3

Graphoderus cinereus

4 3 7 0

Graptodytes bilineatus

2 2 4 0

Opposite-Leaved Pondweed

Groenlandia densa

1 43 44 0

Gyrinus distinctus

1 1 0

Gyrinus natator 2 2 0

Gyrinus 10 3 13 0

suffriani

Haliplus variegatus

1 1 0

Helochares obscurus

5 15 3 23 5

Hydaticus transversalis

2 6 3 11 2

Hydraena palustris

4 15 19 38 4

Frogbit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae

4 8 81 93 4

Hydrochus brevis

4 22 48 74 4

Hydrochus carinatus

33 59 92 0

Hydrochus crenatus

1 4 5 0

Hydrochus elongatus

5 6 11 0

Hydrochus ignicollis

5 5 10 0

Hydrochus megaphallus

12 10 22 0

Lesser Water Measurer

Hydrometra gracilenta

5 1 6 5

Great Silver Water Beetle

Hydrophilus piceus

5 23 14 42 5

Hydroporus elongatulus

5 9 14 0

Hydroporus glabriusculus

12 42 54 0

Hydroporus rufifrons

1 1 0

Hydroporus scalesianus

10 34 25 69 10

Wavy St. John's-Wort

Hypericum undulatum

1 1 0

Sharp Rush

Juncus acutus 4 3 7 4

Round-Fruited Rush

Juncus compressus

3 21 24 3

Laccornis oblongus

5 32 29 66 5

Marsh Pea Lathyrus palustris

23 23 0

Scarce Emerald Damselfly

Lestes dryas 12 13 25 0

Scarce Chaser

Libellula fulva 11 6 17 0

Limnebius aluta 8 36 34 78 8

Fen Orchid Liparis loeselii 1 12 30 43 1

Palmate Newt

Lissotriton helveticus

1 14 3 18 1

Smooth Newt

Lissotriton vulgaris

4 19 304 57 384 23

Lophopus crystallinus

5 5 0

Floating Water-Plantain

Luronium natans

1 1 2 0

European Otter

Lutra lutra 1 1 0

Pennyroyal Mentha pulegium

1 1 0

Water Singer

Micronecta minutissima

2 2 0

Microvelia buenoi

7 2 1 10 7

Daubenton's Bat

Myotis daubentoni

1 1 0

Natterer's Bat

Myotis nattereri 1 1 0

Whorled Water-Milfoil

Myriophyllum verticillatum

3 2 78 83 3

Grass Snake

Natrix natrix 5 3 8 0

Smooth Stonewort

Nitella flexilis 2 2 4 2

Noctule Nyctalus noctula

1 1 0

Fringed Water-Lily

Nymphoides peltata

32 32 0

Odontomyia argentata

2 2 2

Odontomyia ornata

2 2 2

Tubular Water-Dropwort

Oenanthe fistulosa

5 1 130 136 5

Narrow-leaved Water-dropwort

Oenanthe silaifolia

1 1 0

Parhelophilus consimilis

1 1 0

Tasteless Water-Pepper

Persicaria laxiflora

1 3 4 1

Small Water-pepper

Persicaria minor

3 1 4 3

Great Crested Newt

Triturus cristatus

85 173 574 167 999 258

Milk Parsley

Peucedanum palustre

3 50 5 68 126 53

Pherbellia argyra

4 4 0

Pillwort Pilularia globulifera

5 5 0

Pipistrelle Pipistrellus 3 3 0

pipistrellus

Sharp-Leaved Pondweed

Potamogeton acutifolius

2 18 20 0

Fen Pondweed

Potamogeton coloratus

3 1 28 32 3

Grass-Wrack Pondweed

Potamogeton compressus

9 3 12 0

Flat-Stalked Pondweed

Potamogeton friesii

1 52 53 1

Potamogeton natans x lucens = P. x fluitans

1

1 0

Potamogeton x cognatus

1 1 0

Psacadina zernyi

10 1 1 12 10

Small Fleabane

Pulicaria vulgaris

1 1 0

Pool Frog Rana lessonae 1 2 3 0

Common Frog

Rana temporaria

5 18 379 133 535 23

Creeping Spearwort

Ranunculus reptans

2 2 0

Shining ram's-horn snail

Segmentina nitida

160 140 43 343 160

Fen Ragwort

Senecio paludosus

1 1 0

Sitona (Sitona) puberulus

1 1 1

Great Water-Parsnip

Sium latifolium 72 183 55 310 72

Marsh Sow-Thistle

Sonchus palustris

82 82 0

Marsh Stitchwort

Stellaria palustris

21 3 74 98 21

Water-Soldier

Stratiotes aloides

1 6 61 68 1

Tetanocera freyi

13 3 16 13

Water Germander

Teucrium scordium

1 1 0

Marsh Fern Thelypteris palustris

10 15 2 64 91 25

Tipula marginella

3 3 3

Clustered Stonewort

Tolypella glomerata

1 1 1

Tassel Stonewort

Tolypella intricata

2 3 5 2

Great Tassel Stonewort

Tolypella prolifera

1 1 0