research project the continued effect of damming moorland drainage channels on … ·...

FdSc Countryside Management

Research Project –

The continued effect of damming moorland drainage

channels on Exmoor Mire vegetation

CU1.I.1

Andy Glendinning

27th April 2012

Word Count: 4872 (5000 max)

A Glendinning FdSc Countryside Management

i

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

2 Literature Review .......................................................................................... 3

3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Research Site Locations ......................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Exe Plain ............................................................................................. 8

3.1.2 Exe Head ............................................................................................. 8

3.1.3 Blackpitts 1 ........................................................................................ 12

3.1.4 Squallacombe .................................................................................... 12

3.2 Vegetation Surveys .............................................................................. 15

3.3 Risk Assessment .................................................................................. 18

3.4 Results Analysis Methodology .............................................................. 18

3.4.1 National Vegetation Classification and Biodiversity ........................... 18

3.4.2 Species Abundance and distance from the drainage channel ........... 18

3.4.3 Statistical Analysis Methodology ....................................................... 20

3.5 Possible areas of error or limitations .................................................... 21

4 Results ....................................................................................................... 22

4.1 National Vegetation Classification and Biodiversity .............................. 22

4.1.1 Exe Plain ........................................................................................... 23

4.1.2 Exe Head ........................................................................................... 24


ii

4.1.3 Blackpitts 1 ........................................................................................ 25

4.1.4 Squallacombe .................................................................................... 26

4.1.5 Consolidated year on year Biodiversity results .................................. 27

4.2 Moisture Indication – All species .......................................................... 28

4.2.1 Exe Plain ........................................................................................... 29

4.2.2 Exe Head ........................................................................................... 31

4.2.3 Blackpitts 1 ........................................................................................ 33

4.2.4 Squallacombe .................................................................................... 35

4.3 Moisture Indication – Bryophytes .......................................................... 37

4.3.1 Exe Plain ........................................................................................... 38

4.3.2 Exe Head ........................................................................................... 41

4.3.3 Blackpitts 1 ........................................................................................ 43

4.3.4 Squallacombe .................................................................................... 45

4.4 Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient ............................................. 48

5 Discussion .................................................................................................. 49

6 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 53

References ....................................................................................................... 54

Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 60

Appendix A Exmoor Mires Restoration Risk Assessment Form ..................... 61

Appendix B Example from a completed data set ............................................ 62

Appendix C Summarised NVC for all Exmoor Mire Sites ................................ 63


iii

Abstract

Over the past few centuries the UK has lost much of its original peatlands to

agriculture and afforestation. With a growing awareness that such areas are at

risk of being lost altogether from the UK’s landscape and with it their

contribution to both biodiversity and ecosystem services, these peatland areas

are now the focus of restoration projects. Success of the projects is measured

in many ways; re-vegetation, increasing biodiversity, increased levels of

invertebrates and fauna, increased ecosystem services (e.g. improving water

quality and flood mitigation). The Exmoor Mires Restoration Project is one such

project, which periodically conducts vegetation surveys to assess its progress.

This paper reports on the background to the loss of such peatlands and the

management practices that are in place to restore them. It reviews some of the

research that has been conducted to assess the impacts of the loss and

subsequent effects of restoration work, in the UK and beyond. The analysis of

the survey data using a single method shows partial improvement, but not

across all the sites surveyed. Only when the data is further analysed and

assessed in parallel with vegetation classification and biodiversity

measurements can the report conclude that there has been positive change in

the mire’s vegetation communities. Although as reported from other examples

of the restoration process, it may take 5 to 10 more years before any real shift in

vegetation classification occurs.


1

1 Introduction

Peatland areas cover about 2.9 million ha or 13% of the UK, with the majority, some 2.6

million ha, in Scotland (Scottish National Heritage, 1995; Milne and Brown, 1997). Yet

whilst this is less than 1% of the 350 million ha of all northern boreal and sub-arctic

peatlands, the UK’s peatlands contribute 10 to 15% of the world’s total for a particular

peatland type; the blanket bog (or mire) (Gorham, 1991; Tallis et al, 1998).

These mires have been subjected to a long history of management practices, with the

focus changing as different uses and ‘values’ has been found and assigned to this unique

habitat. The areas have been used for creating agricultural arable or grazing land, peat

extraction, afforestation and, more recently, increasing biodiversity, providing ecosystem

services (e.g. water quality, flood control) or carbon sequestration (Stewart and Lance,

1983; Holden, 2004; Defra 2008).

With increased awareness in conservation and the value of these unique habitats

(Natural England, 2012), such mire areas across the UK have become the focus of many

management strategies to restore then to their pristine state (IUCN, 2011).

In 1998 a partnership was established on Exmoor, with stakeholders including the

Environment Agency, Exmoor National Park Authority, Natural England, South West

Water, to design and implement restoration strategies pertinent to the local mires (ENPA,

2011). After many decades and even centuries of land management and drainage, the

Exmoor mires vegetation communities had become dominated by species that thrived on

the drying, changing land, e.g. Purple Moor Grass Molinia caerluea. The changes in

hydrology and vegetation community type also had the effect of limiting the range and

impact of the original bog-forming species; Sphagnum spp.

By systematically blocking previously dug drainage channels with an array of dam

materials, ranging from plastic and wood to straw and peat, the Exmoor Mires

Restoration Project intended to re-wet areas of the original mire with the aim of restoring

the original vegetation communities and habitats. By the end of 2010 the Project had

successfully re-wetted some 350 ha (ENPA, 2011).


2

In 2011 the Exmoor Mires Project was assimilated into South West Water’s Upstream

Thinking, whose aims are to improve the quality and quantity of water not only on

Exmoor, but also on Dartmoor and within many of the Southwest of England’s rivers

(South West Water, 2012). With the intention to re-wet some additional 2000 ha on

Exmoor alone, the Project aims to restore many of Exmoor’s mires and with them their

associated vegetation communities and habitats. The outcome is to establish pristine

ecosystems that will in turn provide the ecosystem services necessary to improve the

areas water quality and quantity, whilst at the same time restoring and conserving the

area’s unique habitats and biodiversity.

As part of routine monitoring to determine the success, or otherwise, of their

management strategies, the Exmoor Mires Project carries out bi-annular vegetation

surveys. This project is based around the survey work conducted in 2011 and aims to

identify if the change, to a peat bog (mire) flora and associated National Vegetation

Classification (Rodwell, 1991), of selected areas on Exmoor is being actively achieved

through the management of moorland drainage and associated strategies.


3

2 Literature Review

The focus of management of the UK’s peatlands, like much of that across Northern

Europe, has changed over many centuries and decades as different uses and ‘values’

have been assigned to this unique habitat (Holden et al 2004; Wilson et al 2010; Wilson

et al 2011a; Bönsel and Sonneck, 2011).

The draining of the UK’s peatland areas to increase and improve agricultural land has

been on-going for centuries. During the 17th century records show that, accompanying

land tenure and enclosure, large areas of the East Anglian fen lands were drained and

the land reclaimed (Holden et al 2004). Over the following centuries as pressures to

produce more foodstuffs for an ever expanding industrialised population grew, so more

land was drained and reclaimed. Baldock (1984) describes Britain as one of the most

extensively drained lands in Europe, where more than half of the UK’s agricultural activity

takes place on such land. With ever more sophisticated mechanical aids being

developed, e.g. the Cuthbertson plough, and the UK Government’s post World War 2

grant scheme to increase self-sufficiency, the upward pressure to drain and farm higher

areas increased (Anderson, 2010). With such incentives peaking in the 1960/70s and

ever larger ditches being dug on wetter hillsides in more effective, herring-bone patterns,

expansion rapidly extended to the draining of large areas of upland peatland for both

agriculture and forestry, with rates of land drainage reaching 100 000 ha yr-1 (Robinson

and Armstrong, 1988).

In the following years however it was reported that not only was there little evidence that,

overall, there was any net benefit for this effort, but that the work was having an adverse

effect on both the quality of the water derived from such areas and the peatland’s

biodiversity (Stewart and Lance, 1983; Natural England, 2009). It was recognised that

not only were these unique habitats at risk of being lost but that, restored, they could

significantly contribute to the UK’s biodiversity goals under the UN’s Convention on

Biological Diversity (JNCC, 2011). Additionally, the damage caused by creating large

drainage networks which whilst having the desired effect of drying out the land, was

having an adverse effect on the peat soils. Formed over many centuries in anaerobic

conditions, the result of drying and exposing the peat to aerobic conditions led to


4

increased levels of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and discoloration of the water run-

off, both of which are, to a greater or lesser extent problems for many of the UK’s water

authorities (Wallage et al, 2006; Armstrong et al, 2010). More recently, work under the

themes of climate change has recognised that the loss of the carbon from the dried and

exposed peat was not only a loss of a carbon store, but also a contributor to greenhouse

gases (Holden, 2004; 2007).

Today, upland peatlands or mires are at the forefront of restoration work across the UK’s

landscapes, whose aims are to restore these failing ecosystems for the benefit of many

of these causes (Natural England, 2011; 2012).

Peatlands fall into one of two categories; Bogs and Fens. Bogs, either raised or blanket,

are fed by atmospheric water only. Referred to as ‘ombrotrophic’, such peatlands are

acidic and nutrient poor peatlands. Fens however are fed also by ground water (referred

to a minerotrophic peatlands) and as a result tend to have higher levels of dissolved

minerals (Charman, 2002).

Bogs and fens can also be referred to as Mires, however the term Mire is

usually reserved for systems which are actively forming peat, whilst the term ‘peatlands’ also includes mires which have lost their typical vegetation and so may no longer be peat-forming (Bragg, 2002, p 112).

Mires, like other peatlands, are defined by the vegetation types that are able to establish

and thrive in a particular area. Mires are classified according to the National Vegetation

Classification index into one of 38 communities (Rodwell, 1991; Elkington et al, 2001).

Designated by the letter ‘M’, these communities range from those dominated by Purple

Moor Grass Molinia caerulea (M25), Hare’s Tail Cotton-grass Eriophorum vaginatum

(M20) or Sphagnum cuspidatum (M2) to those that have wider compositions of sedges

and sphagnum, e.g. Star Sedge Carex echniata and Sphagnum denticulatum (M6).

Whilst, with time, such vegetation will affect certain conditions, their presence is largely

dependent on the environmental conditions, e.g. moisture content, light, acidity. The

conditions in which certain species thrive have been classified for all European Plants


5

and, subsequently, for all British Plants (Hill et al 2001; 2007). Each plant is classified by

allocating it an Ellenberg Indicator Value (EV), named after the initial European

classification, for a number environmental characteristics, including moisture and acidity,

on a scale of 1 to 12.

Restoration work usually centres on the blocking or damming of the drainage ditches to

raise the water levels and re-wet the land. The drains (or grips) are rarely completely in-

filled, rather they are blocked using a series of dams (Worrall and Warburton, 2011). The

type and size of dam is dependent on many factors, including; dimensions of drainage

channel, slope of ground, type of substrate and moisture content of existing peat

(Holden, 2009; Armstrong et al, 2010). Materials used in the damming process range

from using the surrounding’s peat in blocks and grass bales to wooden and plastic dams,

each having their place in also meeting the topographical and aesthetic needs of the

situation. Figure 1 shows photographs of examples of the Exmoor Mire Restoration

work.

Once the drainage channels have been blocked and dams created, success of the work

can be measured by monitoring the flow of water within and out-off the catchment area.

The restoration of mires can affect catchment hydrology significantly (Bragg, 2002;

Holden et al 2006), with the actual affect being determined by the particular restoration

technique applied (Natural England, 2011). Dip wells, placed at right angles across a

drainage channel or ditch, can monitor fluctuations in the level of the water table before

and after blocking work on the mire (Bragg, 2002). Measuring rainfall within the mire

area and the flow of water from the mire’s catchment area, using a ‘v-notch weir, allows

for accurate measurements of flow and water retention changes pre and post blocking

(Stewart and Lance, 1991; Wilson et al, 2010). When rainfall fluctuations are taken into

account, the mean water table level should rise as the dams allow water to flood areas

previously drained. Other monitoring that can indicate the success of the blocking work

can be through measuring vegetation changes, water chemistry and reduction in physical

erosion of the peatlands (Stewart and Lance, 1991; Rochefort, 2000; Bragazza et al,

2005; Wallage et al, 2006; Laine et al 2007; Wilson et al, 2011b). Sutherland (1996)


6

reported that to monitor changes in vegetation, it is not necessary to identify absolute

values, rather it is sufficient to measure relative abundance.

Since 1998 and, more recently, on approximately two yearly cycles specific sites are

surveyed to monitor changes, if any, in vegetation type. The output from which

contribute to the assessment of whether the project is meeting it’s the aims and goals

and, if necessary, to modify management practices. In 2007 and 2009 specific reports

were produced to determine if changes could be seen through the analysis of specific

site data (Rutty, 2007; Hand, 2009).

This study aims to revisit several of these sites and present whether the continued drain-

blocking has resulted in increased biodiversity and the presence or increase of those

vegetation types that are associated with functioning upland mires. In order to

understand if such effects are indeed occurring, vegetation surveys will be conducted

along previously established transects and the results compared to previous year’s

surveys. The results will then be analysed to establish if the anticipated change in

vegetation species types and appropriate National Vegetation Classification (NVC)

communities (Rodwell, 1991; Elkington et al, 2001), of sections on Exmoor, is being

actively achieved through the management of moorland drainage and associated

strategies.


7

Work on installing dams

(ENPA, 2011)

Completed wooden dam

(ENPA, 2011)

Completed wood, peat and bale dam Restored area showing overgrown dams and

‘Sphagnum pools’

Figure 1 Photographs showing Exmoor Mire Restoration work


8

3 Methodology

The research work presented for this project was carried out during August through

October 2011, at four specific locations, as part of the overall Exmoor Mire Project

Vegetation Survey work of 2011. At each site a transect line had been established prior

to restoration work commencing and a baseline survey conducted.

Prior to the commencement of the 2011 surveying work, which was contracted to First

Ecology, the Exmoor Mires Project staff ran three knowledge exchange/training days to

acquaint the surveyors with the locations and, importantly, the likely plants species that

would be encountered.

3.1 Research Site Locations

The Exmoor Mires Project sites lie within the Exmoor National Park and are shown in

Figure 2. The four specific locations, at which the research work presented here was

conducted as presented below.

3.1.1 Exe Plain

The Exe Plain site was established in 2006 with the completion of a baseline survey. In

2007 dams were constructed across the major drainage channel at several locations.

Vegetation surveys were subsequently conducted in 2009 and 2011, although an interim

survey was conducted in 2008 as part of another research project (Hand, 2009). The

location of the site and orientation is shown in Figure 3.

3.1.2 Exe Head

The Exe Head site was one of the original pilot sites created in 1988, when the main

drainage channel was blocked. Surveys have been conducted approximately every two

years since 2006 (2008, 2009 and 2011). The location of the site and orientation is

shown in Figure 4.


9

Figure 2 Exmoor Mires Project Sites

(First Ecology, 2012)


10

Figure 3 Exe Plain site location



11

Figure 4 Exe Head site location



12

3.1.3 Blackpitts 1

Blackpitts 1 was also an original pilot site, established in 1988 and subsequently

surveyed in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2011. The location of the site and orientation is

shown in Figure 5.

3.1.4 Squallacombe

The Squallacombe site was established in 2007 when a baseline vegetation survey was

followed by ditch blocking work. Subsequent surveys have been conducted in 2009 and

2011. The location of the site and orientation is shown in Figure 6.


13

Figure 5 Blackpitts 1 site location



14

Figure 6 Squallacombe site location



15

3.2 Vegetation Surveys

The location of a transect line, across which the vegetation survey would be conducted,

was located using a hand held GPS unit. The start, mid-point and finish of each 1m wide

transect was identified by wooden stakes, two at each end and one in the middle. To

establish the exact path of the transect and its length, a surveying tape was laid along

one side of the transect. The tape was secured and precisely laid along the length of the

transect by the placement of regular spaced canes, see Figure 7.

Over the years many stakes become damaged by grazing animals, rot or become

submerged by the rising water. Missing or damaged stakes were routinely replaced,

again using precise GPS and tape measurements.

Once the surveying tape was secured, a 1m2 quadrat was placed at 1m intervals along

the length of the transect. Following each placement the quadrat was first photographed,

then surveyed for the presence of bryophytes and vascular plants. To aid surveying, the

1m2 quadrat was subdivided into four 0.25m2 sub-quadrats, see Figure 7. The

percentage cover for each species in each sub-quadrat was then assessed for

abundance and a corresponding score identified, as outlined on recording sheet, Figure

8.

The sub-quadrat score was then recorded on a pre-prepared recording sheet, see Figure

8. The sheet provided a list of likely species to be present and in a consistency that

aided recording.


16

Positioning tape and canes Surveying on Blackpitts 1

Typical quadrat with variety of species, incl. Molinia caerulea, Narthecium ossifragum, Calluna vulgaris

and Sphagnum papillosum

Pool quadrat, incl. Sphagnum cuspidatum

Example showing ‘seasonal difficulty’ to identify clearly

M. caerulea dominated quadrat

Figure 7 Photographs showing surveying and typical quadrats


17

The Exmoor Mire Restoration Project - Vegetation Monitoring Recorders: Date:

Location: QUADRATS

Score: <4%=1 4-25%=2 26-50%=3 51-75%=4 76-100%=5 No. No. No. No.

Species Common name i ii iii iv i ii iii iv i ii iii iv i ii iii iv

HERBS Calluna vulgaris Ling

Cirsium palustre Marsh Thistle

Drosera rotundifolia Sundew

Erica tetralix Cross-leaved Heath

Galium saxatile Heath Bedstraw

Narthecium ossifragum Bog Asphodel

Polygala serpyllifolia Milkwort

Potentilla erecta Tormentil

Succisa pratensis Devil's Bit Scabious

Vaccinium myrtillus Whortleberry

GRASSES Agrostis sp. Bent grass

Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal grass

Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy-hair grass

Festuca ovina Sheep's Fescue

Molinia caerulea Purple Moor Grass

Nardus stricta Matt Grass

Trichophorum cespitosum Deer Grass

RUSHES Juncus acutiflorus Sharp-flowered/jointed Rush

Juncus bulbosus Bulbous Rush

Juncus effusus Soft Rush

Juncus squarrosus Heath Rush

Luzula multiflora Heath Woodrush

SEDGES Carex echinata Star Sedge

Carex binervis Green veined sedge

Carex nigra Common sedge

Carex panicea Carnation sedge

Eriophorum angustifolium Bog Cotton-grass

Eriophorum vaginatum Hare's tail cotton-grass

MOSS Aulacomnium palustre

Calliergonella cuspidatum

Campylopus introflexus

C. paradoxus (flexuosus)

Dicranella heteromalla

Dicranium scoparium

Hylocomium splendens

Hypnum cupressiforme

Pleurozium schreberi

Polytrichum commune

Pseudoscleropodium purum

Pseudotaxiphyllum elegans

Rhytidiadelphus loreus

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus

Sphagnum S. capillifolium Bog mosses

S. cuspidatum

S. denticulatum (auriculatum)

S. fallax (recurvum)

S. palustre

S. papillosum

Figure 8 – Data recording sheet


18

3.3 Risk Assessment

In addition to running species identification training, the Exmoor Mires Project ensured

that all surveyors were aware of the risks and the health and safety aspects of working

on the mires by ensuring that all likely risk areas were identified and assessed for each

site. A template for the operational risk assessment is shown in Appendix A.

3.4 Results Analysis Methodology

3.4.1 National Vegetation Classification and Biodiversity

Rodwell’s (1991) National Vegetation Classification has been used to provide a

standardised and systematic method of recording vegetation at the specific sites but also

a means by which sites, across the Exmoor Mires Project, can been compared.

Biodiversity in the form of species richness at each site is also presented, again to be

able to compare changes at each site but across the Exmoor Mires Project sites as a

whole.

3.4.2 Species Abundance and distance from the drainage channel

Species data from each site has been presented as a function of its abundance, per

quadrat, compared to its distance from the site’s blocked drainage channel.

The results have been analysed against two specific species lists dependant on whether

they are considered as positive (+ve) indicators of moisture or negative (-ve) indicators of

moisture on Ellenberg Moisture levels (Hill et al 2001; 2007). The lists have been

created by the on-going Mire Project research work. The first, the All Species list,

contains both vascular plants and bryophytes indicators, see Table 1, whilst the second

list contains selected bryophytes indicators only, see Table 2.


19

Species latin Species common Species latin Species common

Drosera rotundifolia Sundew Calluna vulgaris Ling

Erica tetralix Cross-leaved Heath Galium saxatile Heath Bedstraw

Galium palustre Marsh Bedstraw Potentilla erecta Tormentil

Narthecium ossifragum Bog Asphodel Prunella vulgaris Selfheal

Pedicularis sylvatica Lousewort Vaccinium myrtillus Whortleberry

Polygala serpyllifolia Milkwort Agrostis spp. Bent Grasses

Potamogeton sp. Pondweed Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal

V. oxycoccus Cranberry Festuca spp Fescue

Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy-hair grass Holcus mollis Creeping Soft Grass

Trichophorum cespitosum Deer Grass Molinia caerulea Purple Moor Grass

Juncus acutiflorus Sharp-flowered Rush Nardus stricta Matt Grass

Juncus bulbosus Bulbous Rush Juncus squarrosus Heath Rush

Juncus effusus Soft Rush Luzula multiflora Heath Woodrush

Eriophorum angustifolium Bog Cotton-grass Campylopus introflexus

Eriophorum vaginatum Hare's tail Campylopus paradoxus

Aulacomnium palustre Campylopus spp

Calliergonella stramineum Dicranella heteromalla

Polytrichum alpestre Dicranium scoparium

Polytrichum commune Hylocomium splendens

Sphagnum acutifolia spp Hypnum cupressiforme

Sphagnum augustifolium Isopterygium elegans

Sphagnum capillifolium Pleurozium schreberi

Sphagnum cuspidatum Polytrichum formosum

Sphagnum palustre Pseudoscleropodium purum

Sphagnum papillosum Racomitrium lanuginosum

Sphagnum fallax Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus

Sphagnum subsecundum Rhytidiadelphus loreus

Sphagnum subnitens

Sphagnum tenellum

Positive Moisture Indicator Species Negative Moisture Indicator Species

Table 1 List of selected All Species for both positive and

negative moisture indicators

+ve moisture indicators -ve moisture indicators

Sphagnum fallax Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus

Aulacomnium palustre Dicranium scoparium

Sphagnum palustre Pleurozium schreberi

Sphagnum papillosum Campylopus introflexus

Sphagnum cuspidatum Dicranella heteromalla

Sphagnum denticulatum Isopterygium elegans

Table 2 List of selected Bryophyte for both positive and

negative moisture indicators


20

3.4.3 Statistical Analysis Methodology

Data from specific sites and the All Species lists have been further analysed using

Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficients. This Coefficient has been used because the

variables are ordinal and the results are expected to be monotonic (Lærd, 2012; Upton

and Cook, 1996). That is, as one variable increases the other decreases; an increase in

the abundance of +ve moisture indicators corresponds to a decrease in –ve moisture

indicator species or an increase (or decrease) in abundance corresponds to the distance

from the blocked drainage channel.

Spearman’ Coefficient will show either a strong positive or negative correlation,

represented by +1 or -1, or little or no correlation, where results approach zero, 0. For

the results presented in this report, a significant change in vegetation moisture indicator

type, from one survey to the next, will result in a coefficient approaching zero, i.e. ‘no

correlation’ or a strong negative correlation, approaching -1. The latter result would show

that the +ve indicators species had evenly replaced the –ve indicators across, for

example, a specific side of a transect.

Comparisons between two years of the same indicator species, on the same side of a

transect, that show a result approaching +1, will signify a strong correlation and therefore

that there has been little change in species types, their abundance or distribution.


21

3.5 Possible areas of error or limitations

The following list, Table 3, are possible areas of error or limitations with the survey work

and subsequent analysis.

Area of error or limitation Likely effect of error or

limitation

Mitigation now and/or for

the future

Surveyor’s experience Misidentification of species

due to lack of knowledge

Future training

Weather conditions Misidentification due to

damp conditions affecting

ability to correctly identify

Hold surveys early in year

(June through August)

Timing of surveying work Increases likelihood of

misidentification due to loss

of key characteristics

(flowers, seed, colour)

Hold surveys early in year

(June through August)

Abundance measurement

units (1 thru 5)

Units/categories too large to

allow for subtleties and

observation differences

Increase number of

categories

Indicator species lists may

be too narrow

May not reflect changes in

vegetation

Review lists

Table 3 Possible sources or error or limitation


22

4 Results

The results obtained for 2011 are presented below for each site in one or more category;

a) National Vegetation Classification and Species Richness

b) Moisture Indication – All Species

c) Moisture Indication – Bryophytes only.

The presence or otherwise of a site’s previous year’s results, in the above categories, is

dependent on the availability at the time. Where previous date was available it is

presented here for subsequent analysis and comparison purposes.

The data sets, being too large, are not presented in this report, however an example a

site’s completed data set is shown in Appendix B.

4.1 National Vegetation Classification and Biodiversity

The consolidated species lists for each site and, where available, previous year’s surveys

are shown in Tables 4 through 7 below, showing overall constancy (abundance) across

the transect and the indicative National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and Biodiversity

(Species Richness) for the site.

Table 8 is a consolidation of all survey data conducted at these sites up to and including

2011, showing change in biodiversity.

[Appendix C shows all survey NVC class data from all the Mires project sites, with NVC

changes and entries where known].


23

4.1.1 Exe Plain

Exe Plain 2009 Exe Plain 2011

Latin Name Constancy Latin Name Constancy

Agrostis spp. 5 Agrostis spp. 5

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 5 Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 5

Potentilla erecta 4 Potentilla erecta 4

Rumex acetosa 4 Ranunculus repens 4

Anthoxanthum odoratum 4 Molinia caerulea 4

Holcus lanatus 4 Juncus effusus 4

Molinia caerulea 4 Cirsium palustre 3

Juncus effusus 4 Epilob ium palustre 3

Hypnum cupressiforme 4 Galium palustre 3

Ranunculus repens 3 Rumex acetosa 3

Juncus acutiflorus 3 Holcus lanatus 3

Cirsium palustra 3 Nardus stricta 3

Stellaria ulignosa (alsine) 3 Juncus acutiflorus 3

Festuca spp 3 Sphagnum fallax 3

Luzula multiflora 3 Cardamine pratensis 2

Vaccinium myrtillus 2 Polygala serpyllifolia 2

Trichophorum cespitosum 2 Ranunculus acris 2

Cardamine pratensis 2 Ranunculus flammula 2

Epilob ium palustre 2 Vaccinium myrtillus 2

Galium palustre 2 Anthoxanthum odoratum 2

Galium saxatile 2 Trichophorum cespitosum 2

Polygala serpyllifolia 2 Juncus bulbosus 2

Ranunculus acris 2 Juncus squarrosus 2

Ranunculus flammula 2 Carex echinata 2

Deschampsia flexuosa 2 Carex panicea 2

Poa trivialis L. 2 Eriophorum vaginatum 2

Juncus bulbosus 2 Calliergonella cuspidata 2

Juncus squarrosus 2 Hypnum cupressiforme 2

Carex echinata 2 Sphagnum capillifolium 2

Carex nigra 2 Sphagnum palustre 2

Carex panicea 2 Calluna vulgaris 1

Eriophorum angustifolium 2 Galium saxatile 1

Calliergonella cuspidatum 2 Deschampsia flexuosa 1

Sphagnum capillifolium 2 Festuca spp 1

Sphagnum palustre 2 Carex b inervis 1

Sphagnum fallax 2 Carex nigra 1

Eriophorum vaginatum 2 Carex ovalis 1

Liverwort (thallus) 2 Eriophorum angustifolium 1

Calliergonella stramineum 1 Aulacomnium palustre 1

Poa palustria 1 Dicranium scoparium 1

Calluna vulgaris 1 Polytrichum commune 1

Sphagnum subnitens 1 Pseudoscleropodium purum 1

Nardus stricta 1 Sphagnum denticulatum 1

Polytrichum commune 1 Sphagnum tenellum 1

Sphagnum papillosum 1

Juncus articulatus 1

Carex ovalis 1

Aulacomnium palustre 1

Isopterygium elegans 1

Taraxacum officinale 1

Poa annua 1

Carex remota 1

Brachythecium rutabulum 1

Mnium hornum 1

Pleurozium screberi 1

Sphagnum denticulatum 1

Sphagnum cuspidatum 1

NVC M23 / M25 NVC (Class tbc) M23 / M25

Species Richness 57 Species Richness 44

Table 4 Exe Plain Species List, NVC and Biodiversity


24

4.1.2 Exe Head

Exe Head 2006 Exe Head 2011

Latin Name Constancy Latin Name Constancy

Molinia caerulea 5 Molinia caerulea 5

Potentilla erecta 4 Sphagnum cuspidatum 4

Narthecium ossifragum 3 Narthecium ossifragum 3

Juncus effusus 3 Eriophorum vaginatum 3

Sphagnum palustre 3 Hypnum cupressiforme 3

Eriophorum angustifolium 2 Erica tetralix 2

Deschampsia flexuosa 2 Potentilla erecta 2

Hypnum cupressiforme 2 Juncus acutiflorus 2

Sphagnum fallax 2 Juncus bulbosus 2

Cirsium palustra 1 Eriophorum angustifolium 2

Viola palustris 1 Sphagnum denticulatum 2

Luzula multiflora 1 Sphagnum fallax 2

Sphagnum subnitens 1 Sphagnum tenellum 2

Erica tetralix 1 Polygala serpyllifolia 1

Polygala serpyllifolia 1 Ranunculus repens 1

Vaccinium myrtillus 1 Vaccinium myrtillus 1

Agrostis spp 1 Agrostis spp. 1

Anthoxanthum odoratum 1 Anthoxanthum odoratum 1

Holcus lanatus 1 Deschampsia flexuosa 1

Holcus mollis 1 Holcus lanatus 1

Trichophorum cespitosum 1 Holcus mollis 1

Juncus acutiflorus 1 Trichophorum cespitosum 1

Juncus squarrosus 1 Juncus effusus 1

Carex echinata 1 Luzula multiflora 1

Carex nigra 1 Carex echinata 1

Eriophorum vaginatum 1 Carex panicea 1

Aulacomnium palustre 1 Calliergonella cuspidata 1

Hylocomium splendens 1 Dicranium scoparium 1

Polytrichum commune 1 Polytrichum commune 1

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 1 Pseudoscleropodium purum 1

Dicranella sp 1 Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 1

Campylopus sp 1 Sphagnum capillifolium 1

Liverwort 1 Sphagnum palustre 1

NVC M25 NVC (Class tbc) M3 / M17


Table 5 Exe Head Species List, NVC and Biodiversity


25

4.1.3 Blackpitts 1

Blackpitts 1 2011

Latin Name Constancy

Molinia caerulea 5

Potentilla erecta 4

Juncus effusus 4

Narthecium ossifragum 3

Agrostis spp. 3

Carex echinata 3

Hypnum cupressiforme 3

Deschampsia flexuosa 2

Trichophorum cespitosum 2

Eriophorum vaginatum 2

Blackpitts 1 2006 Sphagnum fallax 2

Latin Name Constancy Sphagnum palustre / papillosum 2

Molinia caerulea 5 Cirsium palustre 1

Potentilla erecta 4 Erica tetralix 1

Juncus effusus 4 Galium saxatile 1

Eriophorum angustifolium 3 Polygala serpyllifolia 1

Narthecium ossifragum 3 Vaccinium myrtillus 1

Sphagnum palustre 3 Anthoxanthum odoratum 1

Sphagnum fallax 3 Juncus acutiflorus 1

Deschampsia flexuosa 2 Juncus squarrosus 1

Polygala serpyllifolia 2 Carex nigra 1

Trichophorum cespitosum 2 Eriophorum angustifolium 1

Carex echinata 2 Aulacomnium palustre 1

Hypnum cupressiforme 2 Dicranella heteromalla 1

Sphagnum subnitens 1 Polytrichum commune 1

Erica tetralix 1 Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 1

Agrostis spp 1 Sphagnum capillifolium 1

Eriophorum vaginatum 1 Sphagnum palustre 1

Viola palustris 1 Sphagnum papillosum 1

Vaccinium myrtillus 1 Sphagnum subnitens 1

Cirsium palustra 1 Sphagnum tenellum 1

Luzula multiflora 1 Holcus mollis 1

Carex nigra 1 Galium palustre 1

Aulacomnium palustre 1 Holcus lanatus 1

Polytrichum commune 1 Viola palustris 1

Liverwort 1 Epilob ium palustre 1

Holcus lanatus 1 Mnium hornum 1

Juncus acutiflorus 1 Plagiothecium undulatum 1

Juncus squarrosus 1 Sphagnum squarrosum 1

Hylocomium splendens 1 Sphagnum teres 1

NVC M25 NVC (Class tbc) M25


Table 6 Blackpitts 1 Species List, NVC and Biodiversity


26

4.1.4 Squallacombe

Squallacombe 2011

Latin Name Constancy

Calluna vulgaris 4

Vaccinium myrtillus 4

Molinia caerulea 4

Eriophorum vaginatum 4

Potentilla erecta 3

Eriophorum angustifolium 3

Squallacombe 2009 Hypnum cupressiforme 3

Latin Name Constancy Sphagnum cuspidatum 3

Molinia caerulea 5 Erica tetralix 2

Vaccinium myrtillus 4 Narthecium ossifragum 2

Eriophorum angustifolium 4 Deschampsia flexuosa 2

Eriophorum vaginatum 4 Trichophorum cespitosum 2

Hypnum cupressiforme 4 Juncus squarrosus 2

Sphagnum cuspidatum 3 Aulacomnium palustre 2

Calluna vulgaris 3 Polytrichum commune 2

Erica tetralix 3 Rhytidiadelphus loreus 2

Narthecium ossifragum 3 Sphagnum capillifolium 2

Potentilla erecta 3 Sphagnum papillosum 2

Deschampsia flexuosa 3 Sphagnum fallax 2

Galium saxatile 2 Drosera rotundifolia 1

Trichophorum cespitosum 2 Galium palustre 1

Juncus squarrosus 2 Galium saxatile 1

Dicranium scoparium 2 Pedicularis sylvatica 1

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 2 Polygala serpyllifolia 1

Sphagnum capillifolium 2 Potamogeton sp. 1

Sphagnum papillosum 2 V. oxycoccus 1

Sphagnum subnitens 2 Agrostis spp. 1

Isopterygium elegans 1 Festuca spp 1

Drosera rotundifolia 1 Nardus stricta 1

Nardus stricta 1 Juncus acutiflorus 1

Campylopus introflexus 1 Juncus bulbosus 1

Hylocomium splendens 1 Juncus effusus 1

Cladonia sp.(squammules) 1 Luzula multiflora 1

Agrostis spp. 1 Bryum pseudotriquetam 1

Festuca spp 1 Calliergonella stramineum 1

Juncus effusus 1 Campylopus paradoxus 1

Polytrichum commune 1 Dicranium scoparium 1

Rhytidiadelphus loreus 1 Isopterygium elegans 1

Empetrum nigrum 1 Pleurozium schreberi 1

Juncus bulbosus 1 Polytrichum alpestre 1

Luzula multiflora 1 Pseudoscleropodium purum 1

Pleurozium screberi 1 Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 1

Sphagnum fallax 1 Thuiidium tamariscinum 1

Polygala serpyllifolia 1 Sphagnum acutifolia spp 1

Anthoxanthum odoratum 1 Sphagnum palustre 1

Aulacomnium palustre 1 Sphagnum subsecundum 1

Polytrichum alpestre 1 Sphagnum subnitens 1

Sphagnum palustre 1 Sphagnum tenellum 1

Campylopus paradoxus 1 Sphagnum unknown 1

NVC M3 / M17 NVC (Class tbc) M3 / M17


Table 7 Squallacombe Species List, NVC and Biodiversity


27

4.1.5 Consolidated year on year Biodiversity results

Exe Plain Exe Head Blackpitts 1 Squallacombe

1998 Initial Survey

All species 34 32 Bryophytes 11 11

2006 Pre-restoration

All species 36 33 28 Bryophytes 10 10 7

2007 Pre-restoration

All species 37 Bryophytes 15

2008 All species 55 37 38 Bryophytes 18 13 15

2009 All species 57 37 39 41 Bryophytes 16 12 13 18

2011 All species 44 33 40 49 Bryophytes 12 11 15 24

Table 8 Biodiversity changes at selected Exmoor Mire Restoration

Project sites, 1998 - 2011

(Source data: Hand, 2009. Updated by A Glendinning)

The NVC and biodiversity results show that for Exe Plain and Exe Head all species

biodiversity has fallen during the period of 2009 to 2011, whilst for the Blackpitts 1 site

there has been little change. Squallacombe has seen a ‘year’ on ‘year’ increase since

restoration, with recorded Bryophytes making up nearly 50% of the species present.

Exe Plain is still dominated by Agrostis spp, Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus, Tormentil

Potentilla erecta and M. caerulea, there has been little change in the overall constancy

(abundance) of +ve indicators like Bog Cotton Grass Eriophorum angustifolium, Bulbous

Rush Juncus bulbosus or Sphagnum spp.

Squallacombe and Blackpitts 1 biodiversity since 2006 has increased. However, whilst

for Squallacombe there has been little change in those species that are dominant, some

negative moisture indicators, e.g. M caerulea and Hypnum cupressiforme, have fallen.


28

4.2 Moisture Indication – All species

The results for site moisture indication for all species are presented for each site in

Figures 9 through 16. They show the presence of the indicators species relative to the

centre of the transect (the old drainage channel), at 1m intervals, as a function of overall

abundance of the +ve and –ve indicator groups.

Where previous year’s data was available, it has been presented here for analysis and

comparison purposes.

Exe Plain +ve indicators are showing a marked improvement in 2011 towards the

blocked drainage channel (the ditch) on the right hand side (RHS) but this is not mirrored

on the left hand side (LHS), where actually the indicators appear to be increasing the

further the transect is surveyed from the ditch. The –ve indicators on the RHS are

showing a marked decrease in abundance in 2011 and a levelling of their distribution,

whereas the LHS is showing reduction near to the ditch and then increasing the further

away from the ditch the survey is conducted.

Exe Head and Blackpitts 1 –ve indicators for 2011 show an overall increase the further

from the ditch, however the results for the +ve indicators are less clear.

Squallacombe +ve indicators appear to show little or no change in the overall pattern of

abundance the further from the ditch the survey was conducted, this is reflected also for

the –ve indicators particularly for the change from 2009 to 2011 on the RHS of the ditch.


29

4.2.1 Exe Plain

metres to the right ← of drainage channel → metres to the left

2006, All Species, Positive (+ve) Indicators

To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0.3879

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.0828

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0.69590

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.0195

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0.1634

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.3694

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 9 Exe Plain - All species Positive Indicators, 2006, 2009 and 2011


30

2006, All Species, Negative (-ve) Indicators

To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.7337

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.3576

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.7166

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.0171

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.8178

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

R² = 0.0517

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

Figure 10 Exe Plain - All species Negative Indicators, 2006, 2009 and 2011


31

4.2.2 Exe Head

metres to the left ← of drainage channel → metres to the right

To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.2374

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 6 11 16

R² = 0.2927

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

19 24 29 34



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0.1461

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 6 11 16

R² = 0.2818

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

19 24 29 34

Figure 11 Exe Head - All species Positive Indicators, 2006 and 2011


32


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.4544

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.0012

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

19 24 29 34



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0.4985

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 6 11 16

R² = 0.3657

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

19 24 29 34

Figure 12 Exe Head - All species Negative Indicators, 2006 and 2011


33

4.2.3 Blackpitts 1


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.7399

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.7123

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0.5851

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.563

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 13 Blackpitts 1 - All species Positive Indicators, 2006 and 2011


34


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.3387

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.7694

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.5136

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.4325

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 14 Blackpitts 1 - All species Negative Indicators, 2006 and 2011


35

4.2.4 Squallacombe


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.0976

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.5653

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

26 31 36 41 46


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.3656

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.4679

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

26 31 36 41 46


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.0508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.4077

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

26 31 36 41 46

Figure 15 Squallacombe - All species Positive Indicators, 2007, 2009 and 2011

2009

2011


36


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.2591

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.0953

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

26 31 36 41 46


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.2114

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.0336

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

26 31 36 41 46

To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t



R² = 0.173

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.0123

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

26 31 36 41 46

Figure 16 Squallacombe - All species Negative Indicators, 2007, 2009 and 2011


37

4.3 Moisture Indication – Bryophytes

The consolidated results for the selected Bryophyte Indicators are presented in Tables 9

through 12, which show the overall abundance of individual bryophyte species across the

whole transects, for each site. This data has been presented here to allow comparison to

early surveys (Hand, 2009).

The results for the selected Bryophyte Indicators are shown in Figures 17 through 24, for

each site, and show the overall presence (abundance) of both +ve or –ve indicator

groups per quadrat, relative to the centre of the transect (the old drainage channel), at

1m intervals.

Where previous year’s data was available, it has been presented here for analysis and

comparison purposes.

Exe Plain results show an increase in positive indicators on the LHS with a

corresponding reduction and ‘levelling’ of negative indicators, however the positive

indicators are rising away from the ditch.

At Squallacombe the LHS appears to show more change than the RHS. However, here

the positive indicators are increasing moving away from the ditch and then levelling,

whereas the negative indicators are falling moving away from the ditch and then levelling.


38

4.3.1 Exe Plain

EV* 2006 2008 2009 2011

Sphagnum fallax 9 2 3 2 3

Aulacomnium palustre 8 1 1 1 1

Sphagnum palustre 8 1 3 2 2

Sphagnum papillosum 8 1 1 1

Sphagnum cuspidatum 10 1 1

Sphagnum denticulatum 9 1 1

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 5 3 4 5 5

Dicranium scoparium 5 1 1

Pleurozium schreberi 5 1 1

Campylopus introflexus 5 1

Dicranella heteromalla 5 1

Isopterygium elegans 6 2

+v

e m

ois

ture

in

dic

ato

rs-v

e m

ois

ture

in

dic

ato

rs

Table 9 Exe Plain site bryophyte changes, 2006 – 2011

* EV – indicate Ellenberg Moisture Indicator value for species type


39

To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


2006, Bryophytes, Positive (+ve) Indicator


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t



R² = 0.2881

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.044

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

R² = 4E-05

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.3307

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

R² = 0.0701

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.0041

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 17 Exe Plain - Bryophytes Positive Indicators, 2006, 2009 and 2011


40

2009, Bryophytes, Negative (-ve) Indicator

2006, Bryophytes Negative (-ve) IndicatorT

ota

l A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

2011, Bryophtes, Negative (-ve) Indicator

To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


R² = 0.0166

0

2

4

6

8

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.0905

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

R² = 0.258

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.0082

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

R² = 0.2173

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.139

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 18 Exe Plain - Bryophytes Negative Indicators, 2006, 2009 and 2011


41

4.3.2 Exe Head

EV* 1998 2006 2008 2009 2011

Sphagnum fallax 9 1 2 1 2

Aulacomnium palustre 8 1

Sphagnum palustre 8 1 3 1 1 1


Sphagnum cuspidatum 10 2 4 4

Sphagnum denticulatum 9 1 1 2 2

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 5 1 1 1

Hylocomium splendens 5 1

Pleurozium schreberi 5 1

Campylopus paradoxus 6 3 1 2 2

Dicranella heteromalla 5 1 1


+v

e m

ois

ture

in

dic

ato

rs-v

e m

ois

ture

in

dic

ato

rs

Table 10 Exe Head site bryophyte changes, 1998 – 2011



42

To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t2011, Bryophytes, Positive (+ve) Indicator


R² = 0.2501

-4

0

4

8

12

1 6 11 16

R² = 0.6742

-4

0

4

8

12

19 24 29 34

Figure 19 Exe Head - Bryophytes Positive Indicators, 2011



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0.0349

-1

0

1

2

3

4

1 6 11 16

R² = 0.2467

-1

0

1

2

3

4

19 24 29 34

Figure 20 Exe Head - Bryophytes Negative Indicators, 2011


43

4.3.3 Blackpitts 1

EV* 1998 2006 2008 2009 2011

Sphagnum denticulatum 9 1 1

Sphagnum fallax 9 1 2 2 2 2

Sphagnum palustre 8 1 2 3 3 1

Sphagnum papillosum 8 1 1 3 1

Aulacomnium palustre 8 1 2 2 1

Sphagnum cuspidatum 10 1

Campylopus paradoxus 6 3 1 1

Dicranella heteromalla 5 1 1

Isopterygium elegans 6 1 2 2

Hylocomium splendens 5 1


+v

e m

ois

ture

in

dic

ato

rs-v

e m

ois

ture

in

dic

ato

rs

Table 11 Blackpitts 1 site bryophyte changes, 1998 – 2011



44



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0.4074-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.2685

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 21 Blackpitts 1 - Bryophytes Positive Indicators, 2011



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t

R² = 0

-1

0

1

2

3

4

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

R² = 0.2493

-1

0

1

2

3

4

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 22 Blackpitts 1 - Bryophytes Negative Indicators, 2011


45

4.3.4 Squallacombe

EV* 2007 2009 2011

Sphagnum fallax 9 1 1 2

Aulacomnium palustre 8 2 1 2

Sphagnum palustre 8 3 1 1


Sphagnum cuspidatum 10 1 3 2

Sphagnum denticulatum 9


Hylocomium splendens 5 1 1

Pleurozium schreberi 5 1 1

Campylopus paradoxus 6 1 1 1

Dicranella heteromalla 5


+v

e m

ois

ture

in

dic

ato

rs-v

e m

ois

ture

in

dic

ato

rs

Table 12 Squallacombe site bryophyte changes, 2007 – 2011



46



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

tT

ota

l A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t2007, Bryophytes, Positive (+ve) Indicator


R² = 0.1276

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.0202

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

26 31 36 41 46

R² = 0.0565

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.003

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

26 31 36 41 46

R² = 0.0889

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.1601

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

26 31 36 41 46

Figure 23 Squallacombe - Bryophytes Positive Indicators, 2007, 2009 and 2011


47


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t


To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t



To

tal A

bu

nd

an

ce

pe

r Q

ua

dra

t2007, Bryophytes, Negative (-ve) Indicator


R² = 0.0848

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.2433

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

26 31 36 41 46

R² = 0.0003

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.0235

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

26 31 36 41 46

R² = 0.0368

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 6 11 16 21

R² = 0.3646

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

26 31 36 41 46

Figure 24 Squallacombe - Bryophytes Negative Indicators, 2007, 2009 and 2011


48

4.4 Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient

Using the Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient, coefficients were calculated for ‘All

Species’ results, across the surveyed sites for specific years, the results are shown in

Table 13.

Left Hand Side Right Hand Side Left Hand Side Right Hand Side

2006/2011 0.283 -0.104 -0.371 0.272

2009/2011 0.435 -0.379 0.323 0.189

2007/2011 0.883 0.462 0.913 0.307

2009/2011 0.785 0.645 0.827 0.858

Exe Head 2006/2011 0.004 0.812 0.301 0.754

Blackpitts 1 2006/2011 0.816 0.671 0.792 0.255

Exe Plain

Squallacombe

Moisture Indicators

+ve -ve

Table 13 Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients for ‘All Species’

results across the sites, for specific years

The results show that for several sets of results, e.g. Squallacombe 2007/2011 LHS both

+ve and –ve, there is positive correlation between the results of the two years. For

specific results, e.g. 2006/2011 Blackpitts –ve RHS, there is no correlation between the

years, implying change in abundance and/or distribution has occurred. The results also

show that for Exe Plain 2009/2011 +ve RHS, for example, that whilst the result is pointing

towards no correlation the change in sign reflects a change in distribution from the ditch

outwards or vice versa.


49

5 Discussion

Previous studies have identified that changes in vegetation community type and overall

biodiversity have occurred as a result of the mire restoration work conducted on Exmoor

(Rutty, 2007; Hand, 2009), but that changes can be both variable and difficult to assess.

Rutty (2007) drew a conclusion at Exe Head that moisture indicative plants had

increased towards the ditch but that the restoration work at Blackpitts 1 had little effect on

increasing the +ve moisture indictors and that the results in fact pointed to a continued

drying out of the land. Hand (2009) highlighted an overall lack in increase of Sphagnum

spp and that, perhaps, the assessment and analysis methods required refinement to

ensure that changes were in fact being monitored.

The sites chosen for this report were selected to allow not only a continuation of the

survey analyses from previous years, but also to explore, using a different presentation of

the data, how other analysis techniques could possibly identify or assist in the

identification of changes in vegetation type with time.

Using both the ‘All Species’ and ‘Bryophytes’ lists the data has been presented to show

the change in abundance of both positive and negative moisture indicators as surveying

was conducted incrementally away from each blocked drainage channel. Whilst some

results clearly show a change from previous year’s survey data, e.g. Exe Plain All

Species +ve RHS, others show little change, e.g. Squallacombe All Species –ve RHS.

Indeed, analysis of all previous site survey data even implies a regression of change in

2011 compared to that seen following restoration, again as in the case of Exe Plain.

The data from the selected sites was analysed using Spearman Rank Correlation

Coefficient, which was calculated for abundance moving away from the ditch, both left

and right, between two year’s survey results. Certainly more analysis is possible with this

data and for that collected across the whole Project sites, however the results to date do

suggest that the statistical data gathered and analysed does show that the changes and

trends described above are also identifiable through the review of the coefficients.


50

What is clear overall however, is that although some sites have improved, if the evidence

were based solely on these results, the anticipated improvements have not materialised

across all sites. Only by looking more closely at the data, particularly for the NVC and

biodiversity results, can more positive changes be observed. For example, although

Squallacombe 2009 to 2011 would suggest little or no significant change in the

abundance of negative indicators, careful review of the NVC data suggest that the

dominance of key species, e.g. M. caerulea and Vaccinium myrtillus, has reduced. And

similarly, whilst the Exe Head positive indicators may not reflect, overall, a change in +ve

indicators, the increase in overall abundance of S. cuspidatum would suggest otherwise.

What is clear from the results presented is that no one analysis method can determine if

change has taken place, rather it is an holistic view of several.

Changes in vegetation type and abundance have been identified by this report at specific

locations on Exmoor. However, whilst other sites have recorded less obvious changes

or, in some cases, suggestions that previous improvements are now regressing, it is

important to reflect on the duration since restoration and that this is likely, at the moment,

to be a major contributor to cases of little observable change. Other researchers have

reflected that it may take from five to ten years to see significant changes (Campbell et

al, 2003; Gorham and Rochefort, 2003; Wilson et al 2010). Indeed, Gorham and

Rochefort (2003) reported in their assessment of restoration work conducted to date that,

in their opinion, it would take three to five years for a significant number of characteristic

bog species to become established and upwards of 10 years for a stable water table to

become ‘established’.

What is evident from the results presented here is that negative moisture indicating

species continue to dominate most sites, e.g. M. caerulea, R. squarrosus and P. erecta,

and that it is perhaps this continued dominance of species that is key to the timely

success of such restoration work (Rochefort and Lode, 2006; Armstrong et al, 2008;

Robroek et al 2009). Robroek et al (2009) argued that the establishment of a viable

abundance, although perhaps not suggesting dominance, is more crucial than water for a

specie’s performance and ultimately successful peatland restoration. The rate of

recovery will be as a result of the previous change, over many decades, in vegetation

and the associated effects on the soil’s structure and physiochemical environment


51

(Rochefort and Lode, 2006). The length that the restoration process and the degree by

which vegetation is changing (or not) may be further supported by work conducted by

Bönsel and Sonneck (2011) whose studies in Northeast Germany have suggested that

although small changes occurred after one or two years, large changes in vegetation

species abundance occurred after five to ten years

Whilst there needs to a review of the respective positive and negative species indicator

lists that have been used here and previously to perhaps make the analysis more

reflective of actual change, what has been demonstrated is that change can be indicated

using both graphical and statistical analysis. Although as already mentioned, such

results need to be reviewed in wider context and using other indicators, e.g. NVC and

biodiversity indicators.

Whilst it is not possible to establish if limitations on identification of species due to, for

example, surveyor’s experience or seasonality, affected the data, it was clear from the

fieldwork that those surveys conducted later in the season suffered from weather and

light conditions as well as the obvious difficulties in identifying less than perfect

specimens. It has been suggested by the Exmoor Mires Project that the surveying in

2012 will be conducted earlier in the season and as close as possible to dates for

previous surveys conducted in 2010, thereby reducing any errors caused by seasonality

changes.

Recommendations from this report would be to not only review the positive and negative

indicator lists but a need to review all aspects of the data holistically to understand if

change has or is occurring. In terms of over-coming dominance and allowing other

species a foot-hold, a recommendation would be to review the grazing regimes on certain

sites to encourage removal of such spices, e.g. targeting specific areas with a

higher/greater density of cattle to help control and remove areas of M. caerluea.

However, such changes would need to be balanced with the increased likelihood of

damage to the site through, for example, excessive poaching.

Whilst suggested by the hypothesis that it may have been possible to demonstrate the

success of the current management techniques by monitoring changes in vegetation


52

types and communities only, it is proposed that any future research work include

measurement of other abiotic characteristics, e.g. hydrology and chemical analysis, to

understand better other relevant abiotic characteristics. This could test a possible theory

that in some cases, e.g. 2011 Exe Plain +ve LHS, blocking further up-stream is creating

‘blooms’ of water that flow around the ditch and dams to lower sections, thereby creating

increases in positive abundance away from the ditch.


53

6 Conclusion

Whilst it is perhaps too early to say with certainty that the work being conducted by the

Exmoor Mires Project to restore areas on Exmoor to pristine or near-pristine mire habitat

has been successful, the evidence provided in this report suggests that, reviewing the

data as a whole, moisture indicative species are increasing in abundance in and around

the old drainage channel systems. And although previously ‘encouraged’ species such

as M. caerluea are still dominant in many areas, it is clear that there are management

strategies in place to actively manage this dominance.

Whilst many see such areas as providing benefits to meet larger questions such as

increasing biodiversity, water quality and landscape, others are looking at the quantity

and ‘value’ of the carbon contained within the soils and to offset the effects of climate

change (Worral et al, 2003; Defra, 2008; Evans and Lindsay, 2010). It is perhaps this

last subject that may affect ultimately determine the success or otherwise, of the Exmoor

Mires Project. With global temperatures expected to rise by between 2 and 4 °C by the

end of the current century and associated changes in weather patterns likely to modify

distributions of rainfall (IPCC, 2007), the ability of the UK’s blanket bogs to survive into

the next century looks uncertain. At some point then, perhaps we need to think about

how the mire landscape will evolve and how such ecosystem services as are being

anticipated now, will be replaced in the future.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. David Smith, the Exmoor Mires Project Officer, for

allowing me access to all relevant Project information and data and for his continued support and

advice throughout my work. I would also thank other members of the Project team and those at

First Ecology for their help and assistance during the survey work, particularly in species

identification.


54

References

Anderson, R., 2010. Restoring afforested peat bogs: results of current research. Forestry

Commission. Available form:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcrn006.pdf/$FILE/fcrn006.pdf [Accessed 13 January

2012].

Armstrong, A., Holden, J. and Stevens, C., 2008. The Differential Response of

Vegetation to Grip-Blocking. North Pennines AONB. Available from:

http://www.northpennines.org.uk [Accessed 18 October 2011].

Armstrong, A., Holden, J., Kay, P., Francis, B., Foulger, M., Gledhill, S., McDonald, A.T.

and Walker, A., 2010. The impact of peatland drain-blocking on dissolved carbon loss

and discoloration of water; results from a national survey. Journal of Hydrology, 381, 112

– 120.

Baldock, D. 1984. Wetland drainage in Europe. Nottingham: International Institute for

Environment and Development.

Bönsel, A. and Sonneck, A-G., 2011. Effects of a hydrological protection zone on the

restoration of a raised bog: a case study from Northeast-Germany 1997–2008. Wetlands

Ecology and Management, 19, 183–194.

Bragazza, L., Rydin, H. and Gerdol, R., 2005. Multiple gradients in mire vegetation: a

comparison of a Swedish and an Italian bog. Plant Ecology, 177, 223 – 236.

Bragg, O.M., 2002. Hydrology of peat-forming wetlands in Scotland. The Science of the

Total Environment, 294, 111 – 129.

Campbell, D.R., Rochefort, L. and Lavoie, C., 2003. Determining the immigration

potential of plants colonising disturbed environments: the case of milled peatlands in

Quebec. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 78-91.

Charman, D., 2002. Peatlands and Environmental Change. Chichester: Wiley.


55

Defra, 2008. A compendium of UK peat restoration and management projects, SP0556.

Defra. Available from:

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=SP0556_7584_FRP.pdf [Accessed

4 April 2012].

Elkington, T., Dayton, N., Jackson, D.L. and Strachan, I.M., 2001. National Vegetation

Classification: Field guide to mires and heaths. Joint National Conservation Committee.

Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/Mires_Heaths.pdf [Accessed 25 October

2011].

ENPA, 2011. The Exmoor Mires Restoration project. Exmoor National Park. Available

from: http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/environment/moorland/mire-project

[Accessed 20 October 2011].

Evans, M. and Lindsay, L., 2010. The impact of gully erosion on carbon sequestration in

blanket peatlands. Climate Research (2010). Available from: http://www.int-

res.com/journals/cr/cr-specials/cr-special-24 [Accessed 4 November 2011].

First Ecology, 2012. Exmoor Mires Project Maps: Overall and Sites. Unpublished (copy

provided by First Ecology, Somerset).

Gorham, E., 1991. Northern peatlands: role of the carbon cycle and probable responses

to climatic warming. Ecological Applications, 1, 182-195

Gorham, E. and Rochefort, L., 2003. Peatlands restoration: A brief assessment with

special reference to Sphagnum bogs. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 11, 109 -119.

Hand, A., 2009. Upland Mire Restoration in Exmoor National Park: using bryophyte

species as indicators of mire hydrology. Unpublished (copy provided by Exmoor Mires

Project).

Hill, M.O., Mountford, J.O., Roy, D.B. and Bunce, R.G.H., 1999. Ellenberg’s indicator

values for British Plants. ECOFACT 2a Technical Annex. DETR Available from:

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/6411 [Accessed 22 October 2011].


56

Hill, M.O., Preston, C.D., Bosanquet, S.D.S. and Roy, D.B., 2007. Attributes of British

and Irish Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts. Cambridge: Centre for Ecology and

Hydrology.

Holden, J., Chapman, P.J. and Labadz, J.C., 2004. Artificial drainage of peatlands:

hydrological and hydrochemical process and wetland restoration. Progress in Physical

Geography, 28 (1), 95-123.

Holden, J., Evans, M.G., Burt, T.P. and Horton, M., 2006. Impact of Land Drainage in

Peatland Hydrology. University of Leeds. Available from:

http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/downloads/school/people/academic/j.holden/paper

89.pdf [Accessed 26 March 2012].

Holden, J., Shotbolt, L., Bonn, A., Burt, T.P., Chapman, P.J., Dougill, A, J., Fraser,

E.D.G., Hubacek, K., Irvine, B., Kirkby, M.J., Reed, M.S., Prell, C., Stagl, S., Stringer,

L.C., Turner, A. and Worrall, F., 2007. Environmental change in moorland landscapes.

Earth Science Reviews, 82, 75 – 100.

Holden, J., 2009. A grip-blocking overview. University of Leeds. Available from:

http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/sites/default/files/Holden2009gripblockreview.pdf


ICUN, 2011. Peatland Programmes. International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Available from: http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org [Accessed 19 October 2011].

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I,

II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC. Available

from: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html [Accessed 19

November 2011].

JNCC, 2011. UK Biodiversity. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Available from:

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk [Accessed 22 October 2011].


57

Lærd, 2012. SPSS Tutorials and Statistical Guides. Lærd. Available from:

https://statistics.laerd.com/index.php [Accessed 4 April 2012].

Laine, A., Bryne, K.A., Kiely, G. and Tuittila, E-S., 2007. Patterns in Vegetation and CO2

Dynamics along a Water Level Gradient in a Lowland Blanket Bog. Ecosystems, 10, 890

– 905.

Milne, R and Brown, T.A.,1997. Carbon in the Vegetation and Soils of Great Britain.

Journal of Environmental Management (1997) 49, 413–433

Natural England, 2009. Environmental impacts of Land Management; Natural England

Research Report NERR030. Natural England. Available from:

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/30026 [Accessed 21 December

2011].

Natural England, 2011. Guidelines for monitoring peatland restoration. Natural England.

Available from:

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/24008 [Accessed 19 October 2011].

Natural England, 2012. Peat. Natural England. Available from:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/englands/peat.aspx


Robinson, M and Armstrong, A.C. 1988. The extent of agricultural field drainage in

England and Wales, 1971-1980. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 13,

19-28.

Robroek, B.J.M., van Ruijven, J., Schouten, M.G.C., Breeuwer, A., Crushell, P.H.,

Berendse, F. and Limpens, J., 2009. Sphagnum re-introduction in degraded peatlands:

The effects of aggregation, species identity and water table. Basic and Applied Ecology,

10, 697 – 706.

Rochefort, L., 2000. Sphagnum – A Keystone Genus in Habitat Restoration. The

Bryologist, 103, 503 – 508.


58

Rochefort, L. and Lode, E, 2006. Restoration of Degraded Boreal Peatlands. In: Wieder,

R.K. and Vitt, D.H., ed. Boreal Peatland Ecosystems. Available from:

http://servsas.fsaa.ulaval.ca/uploads/tx_centrerecherche/Rochefort_Lode_EcolStud_200

6.pdf [Accessed 26 March 2013].

Rodwell, J.S., 1991. British Plant Communities Volume 2: Mires and Heaths. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Rutty, T, 2007. Analysis of the effects of drainage ditch blocking on Blanket Bog

vegetation patterns, Exmoor National Park, and Recommendations for restoring habitat.

Unpublished (copy provided by Exmoor Mires Project).

Scottish National Heritage, 1995. Bogs: The Ecology, Classification and Conservation of

Ombrotrophic Mires. Perth: Scottish National Heritage

South West Water, 2012. Upstream Thinking. South West Water.

http://www.upstreamthinking.org [Accessed 19 February 2012]

Stewart, A.J.A. and Lance, A.N., 1983. Moor-draining; a review of impacts on land use.

Journal of Environmental Management, 17, 81 – 99.

Sutherland, W.J., 1996. Ecological Census Techniques: A handbook. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tallis, J.H., Meade, R. and Hulme, P.D., 1998. Introduction. Blanket Mire Degradation,

Proceedings. In: Tallis, J.H., Meade, R. and Hulme, P.D., ed. Mires Research Group,

British Ecological Society, Manchester. pp. 1-2.

Upton, G. and Cook, I., 1996. Understanding Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wallage, Z.E., Holden, J. and McDonald, A.T., 2006. Drain blocking: An effective

treatment for reducing dissolved carbon loss and water discolouration in a drained

peatland. Science of the Total Environment, 367, 811 – 821.


59

Wilson, L., Wilson, J., Holden, J., Johnstone, I., Armstrong, A. and Morris, M., 2010.

Recovery of water tables in Welsh blanket bog after drain blocking: Discharge rates,

times scales and the influence of local conditions. Journal of Hydrology, 391, 377 – 386.

Wilson, L., Wilson, J., Holden, J., Johnstone, I., Armstrong, A. and Morris, M., 2011a.

The impact of drain blocking in an upland bog during storm and drought events and the

importance of sample-scale. Journal of Hydrology, 404, 198 – 208.

Wilson, L., Wilson, J., Holden, J., Johnstone, I., Armstrong, A. and Morris, M., 2011b.

Ditch blocking, water chemistry and organic flus: Evidence that blanket bog restoration

reduces erosion and fluvial carbon loss. Science of the Total Environment, 409, 2010 –

2018.

Worrall, F., Reed, M., Warburton, J. and Burt, T., 2003. Carbon budget for a British

upland peat catchment. The Science of the Total Environment (2003) 312, 133-146.

Worrall, F. and Warburton, J., 2011. Assessing successful strategies for grip-blocking in

the North Pennines AONB. University of Durham. Available from:

http://www.northpennines.org.uk/Lists/DocumentLibrary/Attachments/128//Assessingsucc

essfulstrategiesforgrip-blockingintheNorthPenninesAONB.pdf [Accessed 20 October

2011].


60

Bibliography

Bell, J., 1999. Doing Your Research Project. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Carroll, J., Anderson, P., Caporn, S., Eades, P., O’Reilly, C. and Bonn, A., 2009.

Sphagnum in the Peak District - Current Status and Potential for Restoration: Moors for

the Future Report No 16. Available from: http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk [Accessed

20 October 2011].

Mills, J., Short, C., Ingram, J., Griffiths, B., Dwyer, J., McEwen, L., Chambers, F. and

Kirkham, G., 2010. Review of the Exmoor Mires restoration Project: Final report.

Countryside and Community Research Institute. Available from: http://www.exmoor-

nationalpark.gov.uk/environment/moorland/mire-project [Accessed 19 October 2011].

Moore, P.D. and Bellamy, D.J., 1974. Peatlands. London: Elek.

PYTXIS, 2008 Peatscapes Project: Sphagna as management indicators research.

PYTXIS Ecology. Available from:

http://www.northpennines.org.uk/Lists/DocumentLibrary/Attachments/140//Sphagnaasma

nagementinidcators.pdf [Accessed 25 October 2011].


61

Appendix A Exmoor Mires Restoration Risk Assessment Form

SITE GATE LOCATION - (OS grid reference SS )

Mobile reception: Poor

Nearest telephone landline: Simonsbath

Nearest hospital: Minehead or Barnstaple

N.B. This risk assessment shall be kept with staff on site. All should be familiar with the risks, possible outcomes and agreed procedures.

Hazards Details and outcomes People at risk Risk Existing Controls and Actions Needed

Tracks and Terrain Outcomes

Wet peaty ground with pools, very tussocky and uneven in places Up-to 2m deep water courses sometimes concealed by vegetation Trips and slipping hazards may be obscured by vegetation Water bodies which can be crossed only by wading or jumping Trips and slips possibly into deep water. Risk of injury, inundation and drowning

Contractors staff Volunteers

medium Be aware of the risks and working conditions Wear appropriate footwear for wet, uneven slippery conditions with good grip,

waterproofing and ankle support. Do not be alone on site unless lone working arrangements have been made Do not jump deep water in order to cross features, find an alternative route Work safely when surveying pools and open water areas

Road traffic Outcomes

Small or restricted pull in area, access at Blackpitts off main road Injury or death resulting from road traffic accident

low be aware of the risks Wear high visibility jackets when walking on the road at all times

Animals Outcomes

Cattle graze moorland at both sites Ticks are widespread and may carry Lymes disease. Rutting deer stags may be dangerous Adders are present on moorlands Risk of Snake bites (poisoning and sickness) Disease or injury from ticks, snakes or animal attack.

low Be aware, avoid cattle and deer, wear suitable clothing and check themselves daily for ticks.

To avoid snake bites wear full cover boots and clothing. ‘Look before you sit’ should be exercised and ‘watching where you tread’

Hunting/ shooting Outcomes

ENPA does not control hunting or shooting on most of its land Large groups of horse riders travelling at speed Accidental injury caused by shooting game Injury or death caused by shooting or trampling

low Be aware of the risks,

Rivers Outcomes

Rivers and ditches which can become fast flowing in winter Crossing by wading or jumping Injury or death due to drowning Risk of infection leading to illness Working in water carries risk of infection of water borne disease (e.g. Wiels disease from Rats).

Low

Low

Be aware of the risks Do not enter or jump deep water in order to cross features, find an alternative

route Be aware of risks. Wear gloves. Wash hands before smoking or eating

Weather Outcomes

Weather can be very changeable, become misty or cold and wet quickly. Can be very hot in summer.

Exposure, hypothermia, sunburn

medium Be aware of the risks. Wear suitable clothing Do not be alone on site unless lone working arrangements have been made

Moorland Fires/ Heather swaling

All legal burning must take place between 1st October and 15th April but wildfires or deliberate burns may be a threat.

Risk of getting persons or machinery caught in fire

Contractors, staff volunteers

Low Project officer to check burning programme with ENPA Rangers, Surveying should be timetabled to avoid scheduled burns

All to be aware of risk of wildfires. The Moors should be vacated by any persons at first indication of a wildfire coming towards them

Site and Outline Work Risk Assessment

MONITORING Visits to mire restoration sites

Risk Assessment Undertaken by: David Smith

Signed _________________________ Date__ __ 2011

EMERGENCY PROCEDURE. In case of an emergency (Call 999 or 112):

There is/is not ambulance access to the gate

Area can/cannot be accessed by quadbike / Foot / Helicopter

Air Ambulance can/cannot land at grid references listed

Contact ENPA office at Exmoor House: 01398323665 or Rangers:


62

Appendix B Example from a completed data set

Name: Exe Plain date: 14/09/2011 15/09/2011

Quadrats

Species latin Species common1 2 3 4 ……. ……. 27 28 29 30

Occurrence in

# of Quadrats

% of

Quadrats

Constancy

1-5

Overall Abundance

in Quadrats

Calluna vulgaris Ling 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 6.67 1 5

Cardamine pratensis Cuckoo Flower 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 30 2 18

Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cirsium palustre Marsh Thistle 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 46.67 3 30

Drosera rotundifolia Sundew 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Epilobium palustre Marsh Willowherb 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 50 3 32

Erica tetralix Cross-leaved Heath 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Galium palustre Marsh Bedstraw 4 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 18 60 3 51

Galium saxatile Heath Bedstraw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16.67 1 15

Montia fontana Blinks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Narthecium ossifragum Bog Asphodel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pedicularis sylvatica Lousewort 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polygala serpyllifolia Milkwort 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 12 40 2 35

Potentilla erecta Tormentil 3 3 0 0 4 4 3 4 19 63.33 4 53

Potamogeton sp. Pondweed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Prunella vulgaris Selfheal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 23.33 2 17

Ranunculus batrachium Water-crowfoot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ranunculus flammula Lesser Spearwort 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 36.67 2 17

Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup 3 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 20 66.67 4 67

Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 56.67 3 49

Sculletaria minor Lesser Skullcap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


63

Appendix C Summarised NVC for all Exmoor Mire Sites

(Provided courtesy of D. Smith; Exmoor Mires Project, Project Manager)

Site Base line (NVC) Surveyed 1998 (and species number)

Base line (NVC) Surveyed 2006/2007 (and species number)

Monitoring or base line survey 2008 (and species number)



Species Change 2006- present

Community change 2006- present

1.Exehead Line E

M25: Molinia caerulea - Potentilla erecta bog (34)

M25 (33)

Restoration spring 2007 M25 (37)

M3 Eriphorum angustifolium bog pool, and M17 (37)

+4 M25 to M17 (+ve )

2. Blackpitts Line G

M25: Molinia caerulea - Potentilla erecta bog (32)

M25 (30)

Restoration spring 2007 M25 (38)

M25 (39)

+9 No change

3. Blackpitts 2 M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire or M19 Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire (poor fit). (33)

Restoration spring 2007 M25 or M19 (45)

Elements of M25, M17, M3, M19, M20 (29)

-4 M25 to mixed (+ve)

4.Blackpitts 50yr old cuttings (control site)

M17 Trichophorum cespitosum – Eriophorum vaginatum Blanket mire + M2 Sphagnum cuspidatum/fallax pool (30)

na Na Na

6. Exe Plain M25:Molinia caerulea - Potentilla erecta bog or M23 Juncus effuses/acutiflorus – Gallium palustre. Rush pasture (36)

Restoration spring 2007 M25 or M23 (55)

M25 or M23 (58)

+22 M25 to M23 (+ve)

7. Upper Exe Valley (at lower Blackpitts)

M2 Sphagnum cuspidatum/fallax bog pool community (in ditch) and M6 Carex echinata – Sphagnum fallax mire (43)

Restoration Nov 08 M2 Sphagnum cuspidatum/fallax bog pool community (in ditch) and M6 Carex echinata – Sphagnum fallax mire (40)

-3 No change

8. Roostitichen M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus –

Spring 2007 restoration M15

M17 (68) +18 M23 to M17 (+ve)


64








Gallium palustre. Rush pasture (50)

(62)

9. Broadmead M25:Molinia caerulea - Potentilla erecta bog Erica tetralix sub community (32)

Spring 2007 restoration M25 (46)

M25c (36) -10 No change

10. Squallacombe Restoration site

M25:Molinia caerulea - Potentilla erecta bog Erica tetralix sub community or M15 Trichophorum cespitosum – Erica tetralix Wet heath (37)

Restored Nov 2007 M3/ M17 (38) +1 M25 to M3/M17 (+ve)

11. Squallacombe Intact bog (control site)

M18 Erica tetralix – Sphagnum papillosum Blanket mire (29)

Na

12. Comerslade M17 Trichophorum cespitosum – Eriophorum vaginatum Blanket mire (42)

Restored 2010

13. Hangley Cleave east

M25a Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire (22)

Restored Spring 2008 M25a (27) +5 No change

14. Hangley Cleave west

M25a Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire or M15 Trichophorum cespitosum – Erica tetralix Wet heath (40)

Restored Spring 2008 M17 (47) +7 M25 to M17 (+ve)

15. Long Holcombe west

M25b Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire (17)

Restoration March 09

16. Long Holcombe east

M25b Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire (12)


17. Vernie’s Allotment

Possible M17 Trichophorum

Restoration Nov 08 M17 (37) -1 No change


65








cespitosum – Eriophorum vaginatum Blanket mire (38)

18. North Twitchen

M15 Trichophorum cespitosum – Erica tetralix Wet heath (44)


19. Aldermans Barrow allotment

M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire (37)

Restoration Nov 08 M25 (48) +11 No change

20. Roostichen Phase 2

M15 Trichophorum cespitosum – Erica tetralix Wet heath or M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire (48) Restoration Nov 08

Restoration Nov 2008 M15 (42) -6 No change

21. Ricksy Ball (Aclands) damaged site

M25 (13)

22. Homer Common

M25a (47)

research project the continued effect of damming moorland drainage channels on … ·...

Documents