Moor End Nature Reserve,

Sutton-on-the-Forest:

Ecological Survey

A report for Sutton-on-the-Forest Parish Council

Martin Hammond Ecology

martinhammondecology@gmail.com

September 2016

1

1. Introduction

This report has been commissioned by Sutton-on-the-Forest Parish Council to review the

ecological interest of Moor End and provide management recommendations. Moor End,

also known as The Common, is a 3.42 hectare (8.45 acre) area of registered common land

on Carr Lane, at the south-eastern edge of the village. It is located at Nation Grid Reference

SE 591 643, at an elevation of 28 metres AOD, and lies within the Vale of York. The Parish of

Sutton-on-the-Forest is in Hambleton District in the County of North Yorkshire.

Moor End is designated as a County Wildlife Site (also known as a Site of Importance for

Nature Conservation), and is protected from development under local planning policies

(Hambleton District Council Local Development Framework and the forthcoming Hambleton

Local Plan).

Visits were made on 5th May, 14th June and 9th August 2016 to update information on the

ecological interest of the site. An ‘extended Phase 1’ survey of the site has been undertaken

and the ecological quality of the two main ponds has been assessed using the standard

methodology known as PSYM (see Appendix 1).

2. Existing information

The Parish Council holds various information about Moor End, mostly documenting on/off

attempts to implement suitable management. A wildlife survey from 1974 is informative. It

describes “Sphagnum areas” on the west of the common which dried out in summer,

though there was standing water elsewhere. The principal habitats included “open water,

unshaded marsh and a woodland heath”. Alder-willow woodland occurred around the

ponds with oak-birch woodland on the sandier areas, though this had “heathland

characteristics” and was presumably more open than today. Seasonally-flooded, open fen

supported Common Spotted Orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii and Fen Bedstraw Galium

uliginosum along with more widespread wet grassland plants.

It contains a plant list made in May 1974 which can be compared to the 2016 survey. The

site has lost species associated with heathy grassland such as Betony Betonica officinalis,

Tormentil Potentilla erecta, Heath Bedstraw Galium saxatile and Heath Woodrush Luzula

sylvatica. Unfortunately there is no indication of how widespread or abundant these species

were, but their loss probably reflects the loss of acidic, open habitats during the past 42

years. Also missing now are a few meadow species (perhaps found on the road verge?) like

Yellow Rattle Rhinanthus minor and Meadow Vetchling Lathyrus pratensis. Twayblade

Neottia ovata was formerly found in more open woodland. A few wetland plants like Fen

Bedstraw have also disappeared although Tubular Water-dropwort Oenanthe fistulosa and

Pond Water-crowfoot Ranunculus peltatus persisted until more recently and might await

rediscovery.

2

The report records that 32 species of bird had bred or attempted to breed on the Common

in the early 1970s. Along with woodland and hedgerow birds still present today, these

included several favouring open ground, fen or scattered scrub such as Snipe, Turtle Dove,

Grasshopper Warbler, Redpoll, Linnet, Yellowhammer and Reed Bunting. Visitors included

Teal, Lapwing, Grey Partridge, Barn Owl, Little Owl and Cuckoo. It was observed, however,

that recreational pressure caused much disturbance to bird life. The report mentions a few

widespread mammals including Pipistrelle Bat along with Common Frog and Common Toad.

At this time, Moor End was well-used for walking with some horse riding. Littering and

dumping of garden waste were problems and there were already signs that the ponds were

suffering from nutrient pollution (eutrophication); this was attributed to run-off from field

drains and the road. Management recommendations included monitoring water quality,

removing dead trees and litter from the ponds, de-silting an area of pond, improvement of

the footpath and provision of litter bins.

The site was next surveyed 25 years later in 1999, as part of North Yorkshire County

Council’s assessment of County Wildlife Sites. It was described as follows:

The site comprises secondary oak (Quercus robur) - birch (Betula pendula) woodland with areas of grey sallow (Salix cinerea) and alder (Alnus glutinosa) carr. A series of old marl pits form eutrophic ponds, recently invaded by water-fern (Azolla filiculoides). There are also pockets of rich and poor fen, mainly adjacent to Carr Lane. The drier woodland supports a species-poor field layer with broad buckler fern (Dryopteris dilatata), honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.). There is no evidence of ancient woodland indicators. The 'rich' fen areas are characterised by tall herbs such as meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), greater willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) and nettle (Urtica dioica). The more base-poor fen areas support sharp-flowered rush (Juncus acutiflorus), marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre), common marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre) and, more locally, velvet bent (Agrostis canina) and marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris). Shallow seasonal pools are a distinctive feature of the site, both in the fen areas and within the woodland.

The following National Vegetation Classification plant communities were identified: W1

Grey Sallow – Marsh Bedstraw woodland; W6 Alder – Stinging Nettle woodland; W10 –

lowland oak woodland; M23 Sharp-flowered Rush pasture; M27 Meadowsweet – Wild

Angelica mire. The list of flowering plants included a few species not found more recently at

Moor End including Betony, Marsh Pennywort and Tubular Water-dropwort.

In 2015, an ecological assessment by Naturally Wild Consultants was submitted to

Hambleton District Council in support of an application to develop holiday lodges on land

adjoining Moor End. Although not concerned primarily with the Parish Council site, this

provided some relevant data. Notably, a Medium-sized Great Crested Newt population was

identified in the vicinity of Moor End, with records from the two large, permanent ponds: a

maximum of 13 was counted in the pond adjoining Carr Lane (Pond A in the current report)

and 12 in the pond near the poultry pens (Pond B in this report). Small numbers of Smooth

and Palmate Newts were also found in the two ponds. The smaller, highly seasonal pools to

3

the south were assessed as having low potential to support breeding newts and were not

surveyed.

Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle and Myotis species bats were recorded foraging

around the boundaries of the proposed development site (to the east of Moor End). Within

Moor End, Noctule Bats were considered to be foraging within or on the edge of the

woodland, two Daubenton’s Bats were observed on repeated occasions feeding over the

large pond by Carr Lane and several bats of undetermined species were observed along the

footpath which runs along the eastern edge of the site. This confirms a high level of bat

activity in the vicinity, involving at least five different species. Consequently, there is a

possibility that suitable tree cavities could be occupied by roosting bats, which must be

considered when any tree works are planned.

Surveys of ditches in and around the proposed development site revealed no evidence of

Water Voles. Results of a Badger survey are not in the public domain.

A hydrogeological impact assessment by SM Foster Associates Ltd was submitted for the

same development proposal in 2015 and is in the public domain. Local drainage is identified

as running in a south-westerly direction via small ditches towards the River Kyle, a tributary

of the Ouse. Average rainfall in the area is given as 623 mm per annum. The source of water

in the ponds and pools at Moor End is described as shallow ground water from the surface

sand deposits, with drainage impeded by the relatively impermeable underlying mudstone.

Changes in level will track the local ground water table, though the deep layer of silt and

organic detritus in the pond bottoms forms a partial barrier which reduces fluctuations.

The author of this report holds a modest amount of aquatic invertebrate data based on four

visits during the period 1999 to 2012. This includes, inter alia, records of the scarce and

declining Mud Snail Omphiscola glabra and 27 species of water beetle. The latter include

one species categorised as Near Threatened in Britain (the diving beetle Agabus uliginosus)

and another listed as Nationally Scarce (the small diving beetle Hydroporus neglectus, a

relatively frequent species in the Vale of York).

There are anecdotal reports that the larger ponds have support a sizeable population of

Common Toad in the past, but that this has diminished.

Soil maps show that most of Moor End is underlain by sandy soils of the Sutton Sand

Formation, topped by more mixed clay, sand and gravel of the Vale of York Formation at the

northern end, nearest the village. The Sutton Formation is a fine-grained silty sand

originating as wind-blown deposits eroded from the shores of the late-glacial Lake Humber.

It lies up to seven metres deep and extends from the Vale of York southwards into

4

Doncaster district and north Lincolnshire1. The Vale of York Formation is a ‘boulder clay’ soil

formed from mixtures of clay, sand and gravel deposited by glaciers.

3. History of Moor End

In order to understand the present-day character of the Nature Reserve, it is important to

understand its historic origins. This not only sheds light on the presence of some rather rare

species but also shows how this little patch of land forms part and parcel of the history of

Sutton-on-the-Forest.

Throughout the Middle Ages and into what historians call ‘early modern’ times, villagers in

the Vale of York had access to three types of land which provided essential agricultural

resources. Firstly, arable crops were grown in large fields divided into numerous strips

tenanted by individual villagers or households. Usually, winter stubbles and fields left fallow

were open to common-right grazing for part of the year, an efficient way of keeping down

weeds and returning manure to the land. Sutton-on-the-Forest had its West Field, South

Field, North Field and Inhams Field.

Secondly, floodable land by rivers or streams was used to grow hay – a commodity as

important to the rural economy as petrol or diesel today since it was the main source of

fodder for horses and oxen. Flooding replenished the fertility of these grasslands, often

named Ings. After the hay was harvested, villagers could depasture stock from Lammas Day

(1st of August) until conditions became too wet.

Thirdly, the Moor or Common was a large expanse used primarily for grazing but also

providing other valuable resources for ordinary villagers such as peat or turf for fuel, gorse

for firing ovens and minerals such as clay, sand and gravel depending on the local geology.

The Moor would extend away from the village, often covering the poorer and more

intractable land unsuitable for arable cultivation. Polluting activities such as soaking (retting)

bundles of flax or hemp to extract the fibre would also take place on the Moor, away from

the village ponds and watercourses. Much of the Parish of Sutton-on-the-Forest was

Common hewn from the Royal Forest of Galtres: the Victoria County History account

describes the Parish as “about 6,000 acres of that stretch of level moorland to the north of

York”2. Villagers had enjoyed rights of pasture and turbary (peat digging) in the Forest, with

1,500 acres of common provided in lieu of the ancient rights upon the dissolution of the

Forest; a thousand acres of this were on East Moor, of which Moor End is the last remnant.

During the Middle Ages, when most people were at least part-time farmers, elaborate

systems of customs and byelaws ensured that these resources were managed fairly and

sustainably, overseen by Manorial Courts. From Tudor times onwards, an increasing

1 British Geological Survey Lexicon of Named Rock Units: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=SUTN

2

5

proportion of the population earned a living by other means and areas of common field,

meadow and moor were brought into private ownership. This process accelerated greatly

during the Parliamentary Enclosure period (ca. 1750-1850), when most of the remaining

common land of each Manor was allocated to freehold owners. Heaths such as Strensall and

Skipwith Commons are relatively large remnants of pre-Enclosure moors, but even these are

much smaller than they once were. Elsewhere, only small parcels of common land were

retained such as village greens or remnants of old Moor still useful for grazing by poorer

villagers or as a source of clay or gravel.

The Common at Sutton-on-the-Forest is one such area. It is dotted with small, hand-dug pits

from which villagers obtained sand and gravel as well as three larger, deeper ponds from

which the underlying clay was probably extracted. It is unclear whether these provided raw

material for brick and tile making but the area to the east of the village contains numerous

pits from which clay was dug to bulk-up and fertilise sandy arable land. When the first

Ordnance Survey maps were plotted in the 1840s, the Common was still open land dotted

with ‘sand holes’ and trees were confined to the outer boundary hedgerows. Common-right

grazing may well still have been exercised, but if not there must have been sufficient

disturbance from sand-extraction to prevent tree cover from developing. The 1912 and

1950 editions of the 6” map depicted a similar situation, with tussocky rough grassland and

no tree cover.

What this tells us is that:

Moor End Nature Reserve is a small remnant of what was once a much larger

expanse of common land.

It once provided an essential resource for local people and is an important historic as

well as natural asset.

The woodland is a relatively recent habitat which has developed since the late 19th

century.

6

4. Habitat survey

Oak-birch woodland

Woodland covers about three-quarters of the site. Map evidence suggests this has

established since WWII, which is commensurate with the age of the trees. Middle-aged

Silver Birch Betula pendula is dominant (with some Silver x Downy Birch hybrids) with

reasonable amounts of young Common Oak Quercus robur, including some seedling

regeneration. Holly Ilex aquifolium and Rowan Sorbus aucuparia are occasional with a few

bushes of Elder Sambucus nigra and Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna (Elder is more frequent

on the eastern margin of the wood). Small amounts of young Sycamore Acer

pseudoplatanus and Beech Fagus sylvatica occur only in the south-west corner. Standing

and fallen decaying wood is plentiful in the form of dead or rotting birch boles and stumps.

Birch bracket fungi and woodpecker holes add to the variety of habitats which can be

exploited by wildlife.

Decaying timber and cavities provide a range of habitats for birds, bats, invertebrates and fungi.

7

Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum is frequent as a climber and Broad Buckler Fern

Dryopteris dilatata is abundant in the field layer with brambles Rubus fruticosus agg.

increasing to the south. Otherwise, the herb-layer flora is very sparse: Lady Fern Athyrium

filix-femina and Creeping Soft-grass Holcus mollis occurs only very locally while common

shade-tolerant plants such as Lesser Celandine Ficaria verna, Hedge Woundwort Stachys

sylvatica and Raspberry Rubus idaeus are confined to more disturbed and nutrient-enriched

areas near the edges of the wood. There is no evidence of any flora typical of old-

established oak-birch woods such as Primrose Primula veris or Wood Anemone Anemone

nemorosa. A small copse immediately south of the small holding consists of Silver Birch and Elder

with Stinging Nettle, Brambles and Lesser Celandine in the herb layer. There is a small drift of

Bluebells which resemble the native Hyacinthoides non-scripta; these could either be introduced or

mark old hedgerows which were once connected to ancient woodland.

The soil is a mantle of calcium-poor, acidic sand overlying clay to varying depths. In the

absence of grazing or other disturbance, this leads to the development of oak-birch

woodland with a species-poor herb flora characterised by ferns and brambles. In the

National Vegetation Classification (NVC), this is referred to as Common Oak – Bracken –

Bramble woodland, coded W10, although Bracken appears to be absent here.

Wet woodland

The wet woodland around the ponds and along the roadside is dominated by Alder Alnus

glutinosa and Grey Sallow Salix cinerea. Two or three Bird Cherries Prunus paduus have

been planted in this habitat. There is a large Crack Willow Salix fragilis on the eastern edge

of the site and a Weeping Willow Salix x sepulcaris in the north-west corner.

Sprawling sallows create deep shade with a poorly-developed herb layer but small amounts

of Rough Meadow-grass Poa trivialis, Soft Rush Juncus effusus, Yellow Flag Iris pseudacorus

and Woody Nightshade Solanum dulcamara are typical of Sallow Carr, coded W1 in the NVC.

Himalayan Balsam Impatiens glandulifera was found very locally near the south-eastern

edge of Pond B. This very invasive alien plant is likely to be a recent colonist but could

spread rapidly if not controlled.

Ponds and pools

There are two large ponds, designated Pond A (nearest the road) and Pond B (away from

the road, nearer the poultry pens. A separate water body is mapped in between the two

main ponds but in practice this is contiguous with Pond A. Both ponds have a deep, soft silt

substrate. Some observations on water chemistry are provided in Appendix 2.

8

Pond A (photo above) has a moderately varied marginal flora but most species are restricted

to a narrow band around it western edge. These include Water Forget-me-not Myosotis

scorpioides, Water Mint Mentha aquatica, Water-cress Nasturtium officinale,

Meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria, Yellow Flag, Flote-grass Glyceria fluitans, Woody

Nightshade, False Fox Sedge Carex otrubae, Soft Rush and Hard Rush Juncus inflexus.

A water sample collected on 5th May produced a pH reading of 8.15 with electrical

conductivity of 1,070 µS/cm¯¹. A second sample, collected on 14th June, gave readings of

7.42 and 860 µS/cm¯¹. These indicate slightly alkaline water with a high solute content: the

conductivity levels are well above what would be expected for ‘natural’ (i.e. unpolluted)

conditions.

To the south, Pond A overspills into an ill-defined area of more seasonal pools under Alders.

Vegetation includes Rough Meadow-grass, Flote-grass, Soft Rush, Yellow Flag and Woody

Nightshade.

The margins of Pond B are overhung by sprawling sallows, so that around half the water

body is directly shaded (photo below). During summer 2016, the ground was dry beneath

the shaded areas by August, leaving a central area of permanent water. Scattered plants of

Yellow Flag, Soft Rush and Common Marsh Bedstraw Galium palustre occur beneath the

sallow canopy along with small amounts of Common Duckweed Lemna minor. There

appears to be no submerged or emergent vegetation within the central area of open water.

A water sample collected on 5th May produced a pH reading of 7.73 with electrical

conductivity of 810 µS/cm¯¹. A second sample, collected on 14th June, gave readings of 7.13

and 680 µS/cm¯¹. The conductivity readings are high but lower than for Pond A.

9

PSYM assessment (see Appendix 1) gave Pond A an Index of Biotic Integrity of 61%. This

score is based on six important measurements of ecological quality and means the pond

adjoining Carr Lane is of Moderate conservation quality. Pond B scored only 33%, so it is of

Poor conservation quality.

Numerous small pools within the woodland represent the remains of old, hand-dug sand

pits. These contain very little vegetation but much organic detritus. In the interior of the

wood, all these pools had dried up by August 2016. Water chemistry is much more acidic

than in the larger ponds: a sample from the centre of the wood, collected on 5th May, gave a

pH reading of 4.74 with electrical conductivity of 290 µS/cm¯¹. These are similar values to

those which might be obtained from surface pools on lowland heathland.

10

Shaded, seasonal pools and runnels also occur beneath sallows adjoining the road verge at

the southern end of the site. These support small amounts of Soft Rush, Sharp-flowered

Rush Juncus acutiflorus, Creeping Bent, Velvet Bent Agrostis canina and Lesser Spearwort

Ranunculus flammula.

Wet grassland

A small area of wet grassland occurs to the south of Pond A, between the road and the

woodland. This supports stands of Greater Willowherb Epilobium hirsutum with frequent

Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus, Rough Meadow-grass Poa trivialis and Stinging Nettle Urtica

dioica. Sharp-flowered Rush was plentiful in this area in 1999 but has dwindled to a few

patches of shoots. In the wettest spots, amphibious grasses such as Creeping Bent Agrostis

stolonifera and Flote-grass mark seasonal pools. Wetland herbs such as Lady’s Smock

Cardamine pratensis, Bog Stitchwort Stellaria alsine, Marsh Thistle Cirsium palustre, Greater

Birdsfoot Trefoil Lotus pedunculatus and Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre also occur but

mostly in very small amounts; a single tuft of Common Sedge Carex nigra was also observed.

This small but distinct habitat appears to have changed considerably since Moor End was

surveyed in 1999, with a decrease in rushes and wet-grassland herbs and an increase in tall

plants such as Greater Willowherb and Nettle. A few species such as Common Spotted

Orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii and Marsh Pennywort seem to have disappeared altogether. This

probably reflects an increase in nutrients from road run-off, and without management this

area will deteriorate further.

A water sample from a seasonal pool within this area, collected on 5th May, gave a pH

reading of 7.15 with a very high electrical conductivity reading of 1,180 µS/cm¯¹. This almost

brackish and suggests significant pollution.

Road verge

The road verge is mostly tall grassland dominated by common, highly-competitive wayside

plants such as False Oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius, Cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata, Couch-

grass Elytrigia repens, Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, Ground Elder Aegopodium

podagraria, Cleavers Galium aparine and Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense.

Towards the south, the verge has been reseeded with an amenity wildflower mixture in the

recent past. The grass sward is predominantly Red Fescue Festuca rubra with flowers

including abundant Common Knapweed Centaurea nigra and small amounts of Oxeye Daisy

Leucanthemum vulgare and Common Bird’s-foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus. A single spike of

Common Spotted Orchid was observed. This flora is unlikely to persist for long unless the

verge is managed more frequently.

11

Tall-herb and pathsides

Patches of tall-herb vegetation with Greater Willowherb, Stinging Nettle and Ground Elder

occur to the north of Pond A. Near the road a wet, rutted area also supports Reed Canary-

grass Phalaris arundinacea, Hard Rush Juncus inflexus, Flote-grass and Yellow Flag.

At the northern edge of the site, the sides of the footpath support tall wayside vegetation

such as Cow Parsley, Stinging Nettle and Cleavers Galium aparine. There are a few patches

of garden escapes or introductions including Snowdrop Galanthus nivalis, Daffodil Narcissus

sp. and Spanish or hybrid bluebells.

Map 1 is a simplified map showing the main habitats.

Map 1: main habitats at Moor End

12

5. Fauna

Mammals

Small numbers of Rabbits occur on the reserve and there was evidence of Mole activity

around the margins. Roe Deer tracks were observed in several locations in spring. Various

small mammals such as Stoat, Weasel, Bank Vole and Wood Mouse will undoubtedly occur

though no evidence of Water Vole was found around the ponds. One or two Rabbit burrows

had possibly been enlarged by Foxes in the past though there was no evidence of active Fox

earths or Badger setts.

Birds

Birds observed during the survey included Moorhen (a pair bred successfully on Pond B),

Mallard, Pheasant, Woodpigeon, Great Spotted Woodpecker*, Great Tit*, Blue Tit*, Marsh

Tit*, Treecreeper*, Chaffinch*, Blackbird*, Robin*, Wren*, Willow Warbler and Chiffchaff.

Stock Dove, Crow and Yellowhammer use the edges of the site. [* = species known or

suspected to be breeding on site]

Marsh Tit is a Red List bird of conservation concern.

Amphibians

Small numbers of Smooth Newt tadpoles were netted during invertebrate sampling in Pond

A. Great Crested Newt adults were bottle-trapped in this pond in 2012 and were found

more recently in both main ponds during 2015 (see Part 2: Existing information).

Invertebrates

Butterflies include Speckled Wood, Orange Tip, Large White, Brimstone (several seen on 5th

May), Small Tortoiseshell.

A minimum of 52 species of aquatic invertebrate were recorded from Moor End in 2016

(Appendix 3)

13

6. Species of conservation concern

Four species recorded from Moor End are of particular conservation significance:

Marsh Tit

Status: Red List3; Species of Principal Importance4

Marsh Tit is a hole-nesting songbird associated with wet woodlands with alders and willows.

Its numbers have been falling in Great Britain since the 1960s, with a 71% decline in

abundance between 1967 and 2009. Changes in woodland habitat such as the reduction in

woods with a mature shrub layer appear to have driven this decline5. Marsh Tits have been

recorded from Moor End in 1974, 1999, 2012 and 2016, so there appears to be a long-

established population. Birds were observed in each of the three visits this year, but there

are probably only one or two breeding pairs.

Great Crested Newt

Status: European Protected Species6;

Species of Principal Importance

Populations of this large newt are thought

to have declined seriously throughout its

European range. It is relatively widespread

in England, Wales and southern Scotland

and there are estimated to be around

44,000 breeding ponds in England, though

only about 9% of English ponds are in favourable condition for the species7. A medium-sized

population is associated with the permanent ponds at Moor End, though the woodland and

other habitats will be important for foraging, hibernation and shelter.

Mud Snail, Omphiscola glabra

GB status: Nationally Scarce8; Species of Principal Importance. Global status: Near

Threatened

3 Red List birds are those identified as seriously threatened in Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (Eaton MA et al. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746. Available online at britishbirds. co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BoCC4.pdf) 4 Species of Principal Importance are listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; all public bodies have a duty to consider the conservation of these species. 5 https://www.bto.org/birdtrends2010/wcrmarti.shtml 6 European Protected Species receive comprehensive legal protection under Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) 7 Wilkinson, J.W., Wright, D., Arnell, A. & Driver, B. (2011). Assessing population status of the Great Crested Newt in Great Britain. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 080.

14

This distinctively elongate pond snail is closely associated with pools which dry out in

summer in agriculturally-unimproved habitats, typically on historic Commons. It has

declined seriously due to land drainage and agricultural intensification. There are post-1999

records from only 47 ten km squares in Great Britain, with the Vale of York being an

important stronghold: other sites include Pilmoor, Strensall and Skipwith Commons, Askham

Bog and Heslington Tillmire. Mud Snail has been recorded several times from Moor End by

the author but numbers appear to be much diminished and only four individuals could be

found in 2016. It occurs in a small area of seasonal pools adjoining Carr Lane.

Agabus uliginosus, a diving beetle

GB status: Near Threatened

This 7 mm.-long diving beetle is found in similar habitats to Mud Snail, preferring pools which dry

out in summer. Like that species, it is often found on remnants of former Common land and has its

national stronghold in the Vale of York. Agabus uliginosus has been recorded from Moor End on

three occasions, including in 2016. Although not immediately threatened in Britain, this beetle is

rare outside the Vale of York and Humberhead Levels, and its habitats remain vulnerable to

drainage.

8 Nationally Scarce species have very restricted distributions and are believed to occur in 100 or fewer ten km.

squares in Great Britain. Conservation categories for molluscs are given in: Seddon, M.B., Killeen, I.J. & Fowles, A.P. (2014). A review of the non-marine Mollusca of Great Britain. Species Status No. 17. NRW Evidence Report 14. Natural Resources Wales: Bangor.

Two rare invertebrates of seasonal pools found at Moor End:

Mud Snail Omphiscola glabra and the diving beetle Agabus

uliginosus

15

7. Recommendations for conservation management

Woodland management

The woodland is species-poor and of modern (post-WWII) origin. However, it is a representative example of natural, unplanted oak-birch woodland. Its natural structure means there is a wide range of habitats for bats, songbirds, invertebrates and fungi, many of which are missing from woods managed for forestry.

Minimal management is recommended.

Small scale planting of Hazel would help develop the shrub layer.

If greater public access is provided, try to keep as much standing and fallen dead wood as possible, wherever this does not compromise people’s safety.

Any works to larger trees should take account of the possible presence of roosting bats, which are protected by law.

Sycamore and Beech are not native to North Yorkshire and should be discouraged from spreading.

Invasive Spanish Bluebell and Himalayan Balsam should be removed. People should be discouraged from introducing plants from their gardens.

The woodland has developed since WWII on previously open ground and it lacks the special plants and historic features of ancient woods. Prior to this, grazing and small-scale sand quarrying would have maintained open heathland and grassland. Plants typical of lowland oak-birch woodland on acidic soils such as Broad Buckler Fern and Honeysuckle predominate, and no uncommon species have been recorded. The woodland would not, in itself, merit County Wildlife Site status. It does, however, contain a wide range of features associated with natural woodland such as standing and fallen deadwood, stumps, rot holes, woodpecker holes and fissures. Such features tend to be scarce or absent in woodland which has been managed for forestry or amenity purposes. They will provide habitat for specialised invertebrates and fungi, nesting places and foraging opportunities for birds and potential roost habitat for bats – especially tree-dwellers such as Noctule Bat. From a nature conservation viewpoint, a minimal approach to woodland management

should be adopted. Any access improvements need to take account of the natural character

of the habitat: importantly, trees should be allowed to age naturally so that standing and

fallen dead wood is retained wherever possible. Although the herbaceous vegetation is

species-poor, this is typical of oak-birch woods on acidic soils and additional species will

slowly colonise of their own accord. Attempting to reduce the prevalence of ferns and

brambles are unlikely to be sustainable.

The woodland already supports the naturally-characteristic trees of lowland oak-birch woodland (Common Oak, Silver Birch, Holly and Rowan), with the exception of Hazel Corylus

16

avellanus, a species which is often slow to colonise small and isolated woods. Planting small amounts of Hazel should be considered, e.g. 10 plants in shrub guards to protect against browsing by Roe Deer and Rabbits. It is always advisable to use local-origin stock in order to maintain genetic diversity, and nurseries such as Castle Howard Tree Nursery may be able to provide Yorkshire-provenance plants. Beech and Sycamore do not occur naturally in North Yorkshire. At present, a few young trees of each species are present in the south-western sector of the woodland. These do not pose an immediate problem but could change the character of the wood if allowed to spread. It would therefore be wise to monitor these species regularly and remove any additional saplings which become established. Other potentially invasive plants include Spanish Bluebell and Himalayan Balsam. A few clumps of Spanish Bluebell (or hybrid Garden Bluebell) can be found along the path and have probably been deliberately planted. These can be distinguished from native Bluebells using the information here: http://www.plantlife.org.uk/about_us/faq/bluebells Himalayan Balsam seems to be a recent invader and was only found in a small area at the edge of the wood south of the poultry pens. This species could spread rapidly and needs urgent action to eradicate it. Green spaces close to towns and villages are particularly at risk from invasive species: these

may be introduced by well-meaning people, escape from gardens of their own volition, or

arrive by natural means. It is important to discourage people from introducing plants to

Moor End.

Public access and amenity Detailed recommendations on public access are outside the scope of this report. Creation of a path through the woodland has been suggested on various occasions. It is unlikely that a well-defined footpath would be unduly detrimental to wildlife since there are few disturbance-sensitive species. However, the majority of the wood would need to be retained in a relatively natural state, with dense fern and bramble growth limiting more general access. The Parish Council would need to consider carefully whether it has the resources to maintain such a path: for example, it would need to inspect adjoining trees on a regular basis in order to identify safety hazards. Creation of a path by regular cutting of vegetation or using natural materials such as woodchip is unlikely to disturb Great Crested Newts, so would not require licensing from Natural England. However, Natural England should be consulted if any hard surfacing is being considered.

17

A circular path leading from the existing footpath along the eastern edge of Moor End, through the woodland and back along the roadside would be an attractive proposition but there is insufficient width of level road verge to make this feasible. A simpler way of improving public enjoyment might to be maintain vistas across one or both ponds by cutting swaths of vegetation on a regular basis. This might require three or four cuts each year, with the arisings removed to compost piles away from the water’s edge. The first cut would need to take place in early spring, to render the mown vista unattractive to nesting birds.

Managing ponds and pools The large pond near Carr Lane (Pond A) is of moderate ecology quality and the pond near the poultry pens (Pond B) is poor. Both appear to have poor water quality, probably due to inflow of polluted surface water. Pond B is also heavily shaded. Both ponds support Great Crested Newts.

Removal of overhanging sallows from Pond B will allow marginal vegetation to develop and should be considered a priority. This could provide an opportunity to re-establish wetland plants which have disappeared from Moor End, such as the uncommon and declining Tubular Water-dropwort.

Removal of sediment from Pond B would improve water and habitat quality as well as amenity value. However, this would be a costly operation which would require careful planning.

Any works to the ponds would need to take account of the presence of Great Crested Newts.

The Parish Council should investigate possible sources of polluted surface water and consider how these might be dealt with.

Pond A is of moderate ecological quality. It supported more varied vegetation in 2012 when Pond Water-crowfoot and other species were conspicuous; in 2016, vegetation was restricted to narrow bands at the margins. Poor water quality is likely to be a limiting factor, although the pond continues to support a moderately diverse invertebrate community. Pond B has poor habitat and water quality. Extensive shading by overhanging sallows is clearly a problem since this prevents emergent vegetation from developing. Removal of a proportion of the sallows should be considered a priority. Normally, scrub removal from the southern bank of a pond is prioritised to increase light and warmth. Given the fairly large area of Pond B, this is less critical. Around the northern and western edges of the pond, adjoining the footpath, a broad ledge is exposed as dry ground in summer and this is likely to be facilitate sallow removal by chain-sawing or winching in autumn, when water levels are usually at their lowest. Although the sheer amount of sallow growth may seem daunting, it is relatively easy to fell; collecting-up and disposing of the cut brash will be more challenging. A considerable amount of brash could be stacked in willowherb-dominated areas to the north of Pond A, and a lesser amount in nettle-dominated areas alongside the footpath; chippings could be used to line paths. Location of brash piles will need to be considered carefully, if vistas across the ponds are to

18

be maintained in future. Once in place, brash or log piles will provide potential amphibian hibernation habitats which would be difficult to move at a later date due to the presence of Great Crested Newts. It will be important to agree a work plan with any contractor. Felling of sallows needs to take place outside the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive), which also reduces risks to amphibians. Although sallow clearance will benefit amphibians by improving habitat quality, any programme will need to be discussed with Natural England. Cut stumps must be treated with herbicide to prevent regeneration: if not, coppice regeneration will create even more dense and impenetrable growth. Any large scale removal of existing scrub will be messy and alarming, so the Parish Council will need to advise local residents well in advance and explain the rationale for the work. The extent of clearance will be largely dictated by logistics and budgets: clearance of 20% to 50% of the pond margin is probably a sensible range to aim for. Spreading work over two or three years would ensure a more gentle visual impact and provide time to iron-out any logistical problems. The exposed shelf will be colonised naturally by water-margin vegetation. Less attractive plants such as Stinging Nettle and Greater Willowherb will be amongst the colonists but a wide range of other species are likely to appear naturally, perhaps including some from buried seed. A useful method of speeding-up natural processes is to strew seedheads of plants such as Water Mint, Yellow Flag Iris and Water Forget-me-not collected from neighbouring areas. Several wetland plants which have occurred at Moor End in the recent past could be re-introduced from local seed sources, especially the uncommon and declining Tubular Water-dropwort. Seed should always be sourced as locally as possible, and certainly from within the Vale of York: Hassacarr Pond (managed by Dunnington Conservation Group) and Rawcliffe Meadows (managed by Friends of Rawcliffe Meadows) would be suitable sources. There is no need to buy-in seed or plants from commercial sources. Himalayan Balsam would need to be rigorously removed from any regenerating vegetation. Removing sediment from ponds is often problematic because it’s expensive, results are unpredictable and the negative impacts on wildlife can outweigh any benefits. The Freshwater Habitats Trust provides an excellent overview of the pros and cons of dredging: http://freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Silted-up-ponds-and-dredging.pdf In the case of Pond B, at least, removing the deep layer of bottom mud would almost certainly be beneficial. It would reduce the accumulated nutrients contained in the sediment and increase inputs from cleaner groundwater, promoting the growth of submerged vegetation. This is not something to be considered lightly since the costs would be considerable and the logistics challenging. Sediment would need to be removed off-site since there is no obvious location in which to spread dredgings without damaging the amenity of the site or the terrestrial habitat used by Great Crested Newts. Various methods are possible including dewatering dredgings in a temporary holding area for subsequent removal, pumping-out liquid mud or spreading on adjoining arable land. If the Parish Council is minded to dredge the pond, the most sensible approach would be to discuss possible methods and costs with local contractors. In principal, dredging in autumn or winter need

19

not impact on Great Crested Newts providing hibernation habitats are avoided, but Natural England would need to be consulted.

Potential sources of pollution should be examined thoroughly to establish whether any

steps could be taken to improve water quality. Although the drain entering Pond B from the

north-east might be a source of agricultural run-off, Pond A also seems to be impacted.

Seasonal pools adjoining Carr Lane support Mud Snail and other uncommon invertebrates but suffer from poor water quality. Pools near the centre of the woodland seem to be much less polluted, and have naturally acidic, nutrient-poor water.

Restoring one or more open pools within the centre of the wood should be a priority. This could re-create the type of heathland pool habitat which would once have been widespread on local Commons, and provide alternative habitat for Mud Snail.

Opening-up shaded roadside pools at the southern end of the site would be beneficial but these will have poorer water quality.

Water chemistry data indicate that the seasonal pools close to Carr Lane are markedly polluted (Appendix 2), probably due to road run-off, though there seems to have been a marked deterioration since topsoil was spread over the verge ca. 2007. The Mud Snail pools are certainly in unfavourable condition since this species requires nutrient-poor water and may not survive for long unless alternative habitat is created. On the other hand, at least some of the woodland pools have more natural water chemistry. At present, the numerous pools within the woodland have very limited wildlife value. The invertebrate community is very poor due to the lack of vegetation, deep shade and build-up of organic debris. However, the pools around the centre of the wood appear to be unpolluted so they have strong potential if one or two could be opened-up to enable wetland vegetation could develop. There is no guarantee of successful results. It is likely that the woodland pools would always dry-up in summer, which could limit their value for amphibians. Sheltered woodland ponds can sometimes become overgrown with duckweeds, although the acidic conditions at Moor End may prevent this. It is recommended that one or two of the larger pools around the centre of the wood are opened-up to make them more open to sunlight, combined with removal of organic detritus. Trees should be felled around the perimeter of the selected pool to remove the overhanging canopy and detritus excavated to expose a firm bed. Timber should be placed in large sections on the woodland floor (some cutting-up may be necessary but there is no ecological benefit in cutting into small logs or ‘habitat piles’ since these desiccate too quickly to be of much value). Detritus should be barrowed into mounds well away from the pool. Indicators of success would be if, within a few years, restored pools:

o Support one or more breeding amphibian species

o Support a more diverse invertebrate fauna, including a range of water beetles, caddis-fly larvae and other insects

20

o Develop wetland vegetation typical of acidic, nutrient-poor conditions such as Sharp-flowered Rush, Velvet Bent, Marsh Pennywort and Lesser Spearwort.

Colonisation by wet-heath plants such as Sphagnum or Polytrichum mosses or Common Cotton-grass Eriophorum angustifolium would be an outstanding result as it would restore a type of vegetation which was probably widespread on East Moor historically. Opening-up shaded pools towards the roadside at the southern end of the site would

certainly improve the habitat by allowing wetland vegetation to develop. However, these

are more likely to suffer from poor water quality.

Wet grassland restoration The small area of wet grassland adjoining Carr Lane is deteriorating rapidly, with marked changes in the flora evident since 1999. As a result, one of the last remnants of the original West Moor flora is being lost.

This habitat should be mown annually in summer and the cuttings removed to control tall, weedy vegetation and enable wet grassland species to survive.

The small area of wet grassland south of Pond A has changed considerably since the 1999 survey. Less competitive wetland plants characteristic of poor, acidic soils such as Sharp-flowered Rush, Marsh Pennywort and Common Sedge are being out-competed by commonplace, weedy species like Greater Willowherb, Stinging Nettle and Hedge Bindweed. This means that some of the last remnants of the original East Moor flora are being lost and replaced by a banal assemblage of plants typical of disturbed and nutrient-enriched environments. This also affects rare invertebrates dependent on winter-wet pools and runnels within this habitat, including Mud Snail and the diving beetle Agabus uliginosus, both remnants of the original Common. The only practical means of redressing this situation is to cut the vegetation each year in late July, when the vegetation is at its peak growth, and remove the arisings promptly. This will curb the tallest and most competitive plants and, over time, deplete excess soil nutrients taken up by the vegetation. Preferably, cuttings should be taken off site: Hambleton District Council could be approached to see if a skip could be provided and the arisings taken away for composting. Alternatively, a composting site could be designated within the Nature Reserve but this would need to be in a dry location away from water so that liquor from rotting cuttings did not pollute the ponds. Piling cuttings within the wet grassland area, or anywhere that leachate could contaminate aquatic habitats, would do more harm than good.

21

Managing the road verge The southern section of the road verge has been sown with a wildflower mixture. This will deteriorate if it is left unmanaged. It needs to be cut at least once a year, with the cuttings removed promptly.

A section of road verge towards the southern end of the site was levelled about ten years ago and seeded with a wildflower mixture. Although the seed mixture was not necessarily appropriate to the site, this has created a valuable source of nectar and pollen for insects such as butterflies, moths and bees. This roadside strip will only maintain its value if it is managed, and weedy plants such as False Oat-grass, docks, brambles and Hedge Bindweed are already beginning to invade. As of August 2016, there appeared to have been no recent management. North Yorkshire County Council’s policy is only to cut sight-lines along the immediate edge of rural roads. The minimum management required is to cut annually in high summer (second half of July/first half of August) then rake up and promptly remove the cuttings. One possibility would be to cut the verge and wet grassland around the same time using either local volunteers or a contractor. As a rough guide, a work party of several people should be able to cut both areas with a brush-cutter and rake-up within two days. The conservation charity TCV is experienced in undertaking such tasks but charges around £500 per day. Where the grass sward remains dominated by fine-leaved species such as Red Fescue, seeding with Yellow Rattle can be helpful in maintaining flower-rich grassland. This annual plant is partially parasitic on grass roots, so depletes the vigour of the sward. Local conservation charities such as Friends of Rawcliffe Meadows, the Lower Ure Conservation Trust or the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust might be able to provide modest quantities of Yellow Rattle seed from their sites. This should be sown on to the ground in late summer following a close cut, and trampled in. Cutting in autumn is sometimes recommended on the basis that this does less harm to invertebrates and small mammals. However, this would be ineffectual in curbing invasive weedy plants and would not remove nutrients. Flail cutting with the arisings left to decay in situ would only encourage bulky grasses such as False Oat-grass and Cocksfoot. If resources are available, a spring cut (April/early May) with arisings removed would be

effective in maintaining a shorter and more open, wildflower-rich sward. This is not

recommended where Yellow Rattle has been sown since it will remove seedlings. Ideally, a

section of verge by the road should be cut in May and again in high summer, with the

remainder mown once annually.

22

Appendix 1: PSYM results

PSYM (Predictive System for Multimetrics) is the standard methodology for monitoring the

ecological quality of ponds9. It is based on a botanical survey and a sample of aquatic invertebrates

obtained by following a set procedure. PSYM generates six ‘metrics’ (measurements) representing

important indicators of ecological quality. The three botanical metrics are:

diversity of emergent and submerged plant species

the number of uncommon species

Trophic Ranking Score (TRS, an indication of nutrient status based on selected plant species)

The three invertebrate family-level metrics are:

Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT, an estimation of biological water quality based on the

sensitivity of different invertebrate families to organic enrichment)

diversity of dragonfly, damselfly and alderfly families

diversity of water beetle families

Environmental data obtained for each pond include: surface area, altitude, grid reference, water pH,

presence/absence of inflows, substrate composition, degree of shade, accessibility to livestock and

cover of emergent vegetation.

The results are analysed using software which compares the observed data with values predicted

from a large reference dataset of undegraded ponds. PSYM predicts how a high quality pond with

similar attributes should score for each metric, and compares the predictions with the survey results.

The scores for each metric are combined to produce an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) which provides

an overall indication of the ecological quality of the pond. Ponds are then categorised as Very Poor,

Poor, Medium and Good.

Table 1 shows the PSYM data and results for Ponds A & B at Moor End.

Pond A produced an Index of Biotic Integrity of 61%, placing it in the category of Moderate

ecological quality. It scored well for diversity of submerged and emergent plants and moderately for

Trophic Ranking but no uncommon wetland plants were recorded. It scored well for biological water

quality (ASPT) and representation of water beetle families, but no dragonflies, damselflies or

alderflies were present in the invertebrate sample.

Pond B produced an Index of Biotic Integrity of 33%, placing it in the category of Poor ecological

quality. It scored very poorly for diversity of submerged and emergent plants and poorly for Trophic

Ranking but no uncommon wetland plants were recorded. It scored well for biological water quality

(ASPT), moderately for representation of water beetle families, and no dragonflies, damselflies or

alderflies were present in the invertebrate sample.

9 Environment Agency (2002). A guide to monitoring the ecological quality of ponds and canals using PSYM. Version 2. Environment Agency Midlands Region: Solihull.

23

Site details

Site name Pond A Pond B

Survey date 04-Jul-16 04-Jul-16

Grid reference (e.g. SP123456 or higher precision) SE590644 SE591644

Plant metrics

No. of submerged + marginal plant species (not including floating leaved)

16 4

Number of uncommon plant species 0 0

Trophic Ranking Score (TRS) 8.883333333 9.5

Invertebrates metrics

ASPT 4.428571429 4.428571429

Odonata + Megaloptera (OM) families 0 0

Coleoptera families 3 2

Environmental variables

Altitude (m) 36 36

Easting 4590 4591

Northing 4644 4644

Shade (%) 20 40

Inflow (0/1) 0 1

Grazing (%) 0 0

pH 7.42 7.13

Emergent plant cover (%) 5 1

Base clay (1-3) 3 3

Base sand, gravel, cobbles (1-3) 1 1

Base peat (1-3) 1 1

Base rock (1-3) 1 1

Area (m2) 1020 1540

Results

Submerged + marginal plant species

Predicted (SM) 20.6 22.4

Actual (SM) 16 4

EQI (SM) 0.78 0.18

IBI (SM) 3 0

Uncommon plant species

Predicted (U) 3.6 3.9

Actual (U) 0 0

EQI (U) 0.00 0.00

IBI (U) 0 0

Trophic Ranking Score (TRS)

Predicted (TRS) 8.12 8.37

Actual (TRS) 8.88 9.50

EQI (TRS) 1.09 1.14

IBI (TRS) 2 1

ASPT

Predicted (ASPT) 5.13 5.19

Actual (ASPT) 4.43 4.43

EQI (ASPT) 0.86 0.85

IBI (ASPT) 3 3

Odonata + Megaloptera (OM) families

24

Predicted (OM) 3.19 3.34

Actual (OM) 0 0

EQI (OM) 0.00 0.00

IBI (OM) 0 0

Coleoptera families

Predicted (CO) 3.79 3.85

Actual (CO) 3 2

EQI (CO) 0.79 0.52

IBI (CO) 3 2

Sum of Individual Metrics 11 6

Index of Biotic Integrity (%) 61% 33%

PSYM quality category (IBI >75%=Good, 51-75%= Moderate, 25-50%=Poor, <25%=V Poor)

Moderate Poor

Is this a Priority Pond? (Good quality category) No No

25

Appendix 2

Water chemistry

Water samples were collected on 5th May and tested for pH, electrical conductivity (a measure of

dissolved substances), nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO4-P). Results are given in Table 1.

Water body Water pH Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm¯¹)

Nitrate (ppm)

Phosphate (ppm)

Pond A 8.15 1,070 0 0.05

Pond B 7.38 810 <0.2 0.05-0.1

Mud Snail pools 7.15 1,180 <0.2 0.1

Inflow ditch in NE corner of site

7.22 820 <0.2 0.1

Central woodland pool

4.74 290 0 0.02

Pond A (the large pond nearest Carr Lane) had a higher pH reading than would be expected under

‘natural’ conditions. This could indicate chemical pollution, though pH readings are sometimes

elevated due to algal photosynthesis when samples are collected in bright sunshine. By contrast, a

seasonal pool in the middle of the woodland had very acidic water with a similar pH to that expected

for heathland pools on Strensall Common.

Electrical conductivity was high for all samples except the woodland pool, which produced a reading

indicative of natural conditions. Conductivity was especially high in Pond A and the roadside pools,

both of which exceeded 1,000 µS/cm¯¹. In the absence of any geological abnormality (e.g. gypsum),

this is strongly indicative of pollution, in both cases probably including road run-off. To put this in

context, the roadside water bodies gave conductivity readings I would normally expect from ditches

on intensive arable land or slightly brackish drains close to the Humber estuary.

Nitrate and phosphate are key nutrients affecting the ecology of wetlands. Most lowland ponds have

un-naturally high nutrient levels due to agricultural, road or urban run-off and deposition from air

pollution. Nitrate levels were low throughout, though these are just ‘snapshot’ measurements.

Phosphate levels were moderate throughout but highest in the Mud Snail pools and the inflow ditch,

and lowest in the woodland pool. As there was much algal growth in the Mud Snail pools, the actual

level of phosphate could be significantly higher than measured because much of it would already

have been absorbed by the algae. This was indicated by the strong colour change in the ‘digested’

samples overnight.

Road run-off is likely to be a significant cause of pollution at Moor End. This may not be an obvious

source of excess nutrients but it can sometimes be a more potent source of phosphate pollution

than agricultural run-off10. This is probably because a lot of particulate material is transported onto

road surfaces from farmyards and urban areas.

10PJA Withers et al. Characterisation of phosphate sources in rural watersheds. Journal of Environmental Quality, 38: 1998-2011.

Appendix 3: Aquatic invertebrate data

Species English name Family Order Location Date Notes

Omphiscola glabra Mud Snail Lymnaeidae Gastropoda Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016 4 found

Aplexa hypnorum Moss Bladder Snail Physidae Gastropoda Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Anisus leucostoma White-lipped Ramshorn snail Planorbidae Gastropoda Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Pisidium sp. a pea-mussel Sphaeriidae Bivalvia Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Asellus aquaticus Water Hoglouse Asellidae Isopoda Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Crangonyx pseudogracilis an amphipod shrimp Crangonyctidae Amphipoda Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Cloeon dipterum Pond Olive mayfly Baetidae Ephemeroptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Agabus bipustulatus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Agabus uliginosus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016 1♂, southern end

Ilybius fuliginosus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Ilybius montanus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Colymbetes fuscus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Hydroporus planus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016 3♂

Helophorus obscurus a scavenger water beetle Helophoridae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Hydrobius subrotundus a scavenger water beetle Hydrophilidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016 4

Anacaena limbata a scavenger water beetle Hydrophilidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Scirtidae larvae marsh beetle larvae Scirtidae Coleoptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Culicidae mosquito larvae Culicidae Diptera Seasonal pools adj Carr Lane 05/05/2016

Anacaena globulus a scavenger water beetle Hydrophilidae Coleoptera Woodland pools 05/05/2016

Scirtidae larvae marsh beetle larvae Scirtidae Coleoptera Woodland pools 05/05/2016

Culicidae mosquito larvae Culicidae Diptera Woodland pools 05/05/2016

Asellus aquaticus Water Hoglouse Asellidae Isopoda Pond A 14/06/2016

Crangonyx pseudogracilis an amphipod shrimp Crangonyctidae Amphipoda Pond A 14/06/2016

Hesperocorixa sahlbergi a lesser water-boatman Corixidae Hemiptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Sigara distincta a lesser water-boatman Corixidae Hemiptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Haliplus ruficollis an algivorous water beetle Haliplidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

1

Agabus sturmii a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Dytiscus sp. larva great diving beetle larva Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Hydroporus angustatus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Hydroporus figuratus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Hydroporus incognitus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Hydroporus memnonius a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Hydroporus palustris a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Hyphydrus ovatus a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Helophorus aequalis a scavenger water beetle Helophoridae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Helophorus brevipalpis a scavenger water beetle Helophoridae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Helophorus griseus a scavenger water beetle Helophoridae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016 1♂

Hydrobius fuscipes a scavenger water beetle Hydrophilidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Anacaena limbata a scavenger water beetle Hydrophilidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Ochthebius minimus a small water beetle Hydraenidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Poophagus sisymbrii Water-cress Weevil Curculionidae Coleoptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Chironomidae non-biting midge larvae Chironomidae Diptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Chaoboridae phantom midge larvae Chaoboridae Diptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Culicidae mosquito larvae Culicidae Diptera Pond A 14/06/2016

Asellus aquaticus Water Hoglouse Asellidae Isopoda Pond B 14/06/2016

Crangonyx pseudogracilis an amphipod shrimp Crangonyctidae Amphipoda Pond B 14/06/2016

Corixidae indet immatures a lesser water-boatman Corixidae Hemiptera Pond B 14/06/2016

Notonecta sp. immature a backswimmer Notonectidae Hemiptera Pond B 14/06/2016

Acilius sulcatus larva a diving beetle Dytiscidae Coleoptera Pond B 14/06/2016

Helophorus brevipalpis a scavenger water beetle Helophoridae Coleoptera Pond B 14/06/2016

Chironomidae non-biting midge larvae Chironomidae Diptera Pond B 14/06/2016

Culicidae mosquito larvae Culicidae Diptera Pond B 14/06/2016