# data[].attributes.body
Accuracy and resolution information of abiotic equipment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Geographical Information Systems are a great source of secondary data to help find topics and places to investigate. No matter what your starting point, GIS can help you to choose a location, ask enquiry questions, and carry out contextualising research.

Using GIS to help you develop a question

There are several positions from which you might be starting out - whichever situation you are in you might find using maps and GIS data helps you identify and refine your question.

Your teacher has given you a fieldwork destination, or you are looking to complete your fieldwork locally

You know the general area you are visiting (e.g. Guildford). But you have not chosen the area(s) your question will focus on (e.g. North Street Market in Guildford)

You need to identify a theme that your question will focus on

It is time to do some contextualising research relating to your chosen theme and location.

The aim of contextualising research is to make sure you know enough about the location to generate sensible questions or hypotheses.

This contextualising research can help you avoid questions that will probably not work, like one of the examples below:

Asking a question about the success of regeneration in an area where no regeneration has taken place

Trying to assess the impact of a flood in a settlement with no history of flood events

Hypothesising that different soil types will affect infiltration rates in a catchment if only one soil type is present

All these sound like daft questions, but only when set in the context of some background knowledge.

Good questions or hypotheses will be based on geographical theory AND some relevant understanding of the location.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Geographical Information Systems are a great source of secondary data to help find topics and places to investigate. No matter what your starting point, GIS can help you to choose a location, ask enquiry questions, and carry out contextualising research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Species information

About

Soft rush is a thin, tuft-forming rush that grows in wet woodlands, marshes, ditches and grasslands. It has smooth, green stems, which can be easily peeled to produce the pith. Traditionally, this was soaked in fat and used as wicks in household lamps as it was a cheaper alternative to candlelight; this practice was revived during the Second World War in some rural areas. As with other sedges and rushes, soft rush spreads with creeping rhizomes (underground stems); it flowers from May to July.

How to identify

Soft rush has tall, thin, smooth stems without leaves that are more flexible and a brighter green than those of the similar Hard rush. Its pale brown flowers are borne in loose, rounded clusters.

Distribution

Widespread.

Did you know?

Soft rush can be plaited into all kinds of ornaments, and is used by children to make bracelets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As its name suggests, the smooth stems of soft rush are thinner and more flexible than those of hard rush. It forms tufts in wetland habitats like wet woodlands, marshes, ditches and grasslands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trees woods and wildlife

Ancient woodland

Home to myth and legend, where folk tales began. It fuelled our ancestors and still houses thousands. Ancient woodland has grown and adapted with native wildlife, yet what remains only covers 2.5% of the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is lichen? 7 types of lichen found on trees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trees woods and wildlife Ancient woodland Home to myth and legend, where folk tales began. It fuelled our ancestors and still houses thousands. Ancient woodland has grown and adapted with native wildlife, yet what remains only covers 2.5% of the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The British Lichen Society provides these online learning opportunities, to do in your own time or to meet up virtually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hypnum cupressiforme s.l. (Cypress-leaved plait-moss)

Hypnum cupressiforme often covers entire tree trunks or branches, growing in extensive mats. Its shoots lie flat to the tree and are a mid-green, sometimes tinged brownish and irregularly branched. The leaves are untoothed, lack an obvious nerve, are turned to one side (especially at the shoot tips) and overlap, giving rise to its common name. The shoots look quite smooth and shiny from above. Tree bark supports two varieties of Hypnum cupressiforme and another species, Hypnum andoi, which can often only be told apart by their capsules or by microscopic examination, so when capsules are lacking all three are frequently just recorded as a Hypnum aggregate.

For more information, visit the Hypnum cupressiforme species page.

Isothecium myosuroides (Mouse-tail Moss)

Isothecium myosuroides grows in similar places to Hypnum cupressiforme (often around the base of trees) and resembles it in colour. It can be distinguished by looking closely at the leaves with a hand lens. The leaves of the Hypnum species have no nerve or teeth on the margins whereas Isothecium myosuroides has both. Its leaves are not turned to one side either; sharp-eyed bryologists may also spot dark patches of alar cells at the outer angles of the leaf base.

Closer examination of a patch of Isothecium myosuroides with a hand-lens will show that it is much-branched and quite three-dimensional, forming low-growing patches of densely interwoven stems. Some call its habit 'sub-dendroid' as it is supposedly shrubby-looking.

For more information, visit the Isothecium myosuroides species page.

Lewinskya affinis (Wood Bristle-moss)

By far the commonest species of its genus, Lewinskya affinis ( Orthotrichum affine) characteristically grows epiphytically as small, loose tufts 1-2cm tall on the bark of a wide range of trees shrubs. It's very variable and rather nondescript in the vegetative condition. Capsules, often present year-round, are important to identify this moss. They are near-sessile and partially obscured by the leaves around them. When dry they are furrowed and have eight pairs of pale outer peristome teeth. The leaves are unremarkable and like most of the species in this genus, taper to a point.

Lewinskya affinis often grows with Ulota species, and confusion is possible. However, when dry, the leaves of Lewinskya affinis lie more or less pressed against the stem, whereas those of most species of Ulota characteristically curl when dry. The capsules of Ulota species are also held clear of the leaves by an obvious stalk (seta).

For more information, visit the Lewinskya affinis species page.

Cryphaea heteromalla (Lateral Cryphaea)

Cryphaea heteromalla is a distinctive-looking epiphyte found on the bark of many trees and shrubs. Once known it is unmistakable. It has two very different-looking kinds of shoot; the capsule-bearing ones stick out stiffly from creeping, non-fruiting stems which closely adhere to the bark. Each fertile shoot is 1.5 - 2cm long. Leaves are short, nerved and quite closely appressed to the stem. Typically, each fertile shoot produces several near-sessile capsules which are crowded together on the same side of the stem. With a hand lens, it's possible to see they are partly obscured by the surrounding leaves, which are larger and paler than the stem leaves, and have a long hairpoint.

Cryphaea heteromalla is a pollution-sensitive moss and one that declined considerably in many areas in the twentieth century. Subsequent reduction of airborne sulphur dioxide has encouraged its return to much of the British Isles and it is now common in many areas.

For more information, visit the Cryphaea heteromalla species page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common mosses on trees - British Bryological Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hypnum cupressiforme s.l. (Cypress-leaved plait-moss) Hypnum cupressiforme often covers entire tree trunks or branches, growing in extensive mats. Its shoots lie flat to the tree and are a mid-green, sometimes tinged brownish and irregularly branched. The leaves are untoothed, lack an obvious nerve, are turned to one side (especially at the shoot tips) and overlap, giving rise to its common name.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lowland areas

If you live in a lowland area with fairly basic geology, look out for these common species on stone walls, on old buildings, in churchyards etc. (scroll down for species to look for in upland areas / with more acid geology)

Grimmia pulvinata (Grey-cushioned Grimmia)

As its common name suggests, Grimmia pulvinata grows as neat round cushions, often with a hoary grey appearance, thanks to the long silvery hairpoints on the leaves. It is common on the tops (and sides) of walls, on roofs and on calcareous rocks and boulders just about anywhere you can think of. When fruiting (which it often is), the cushions are distinctive because of the seta's habit of bending back into the cushion and burying the capsules amongst the leaves. But a note of caution: when the capsule matures and grows old, it gradually straightens, which you can see clearly in some of the images below.

For more information, visit the Grimmia pulvinata species page.

Tortula muralis (Wall Screw-moss)

Frequently found with Grimmia pulvinata, Tortula muralis can look superficially similar as it also forms grey, hoary-looking cushions - especially when dry. However, if it is fruiting - which it frequently is - the difference is obvious as it has capsules held on a very long seta. Often, you will see a wall bristling with cushions of moss and can be fairly confident they will be Tortula muralis.

For more information, visit the Tortula muralis species page.

Syntrichia montana (Intermediate Screw-moss)

Syntrichia montana is another moss that could easily be confused with Tortula muralis and it can require some close observation with a hand lens to be sure. Syntrichia montana is usually larger than Tortula muralis, and more often found without capsules. It also is frequently a golden colour, whilst Tortula muralis is often quite greyish. The photo with capsules below is showing both species - the greener one with capsules is Tortula muralis.

However, if you're not sure, have a close look at the hairpoint on the leaves. Syntrichia montana has small teeth on the hairpoint - visible with a x20 hand lens - whereas the hairpoint of Tortula muralis is completely smooth. The leaf shape is also slightly different; Syntrichia montana leaves are slightly narrowed in the middle.

For more information, visit the Syntrichia montana species page.

Orthotrichum anomalum (Anomalous Bristle-moss)

Orthotrichum anomalum is another small cushion-forming moss and it likes exposed, sunny situations on lime-rich walls and other masonry. It lacks any leaf hairpoints and is usually a dingy olive-green colour. When dry, its leaves lie more or less appressed to the stem. Though rather anonymous-looking much of the time, in winter and spring it has striking, reddish-brown barrel-shaped capsules raised a few millimetres above the leaves and then the plants catch the eye. It is one of a group of similar mosses, the majority of which grow as epiphytes on the bark of trees and shrubs. Only a few, however, have capsules which are completely raised above the leaves and of these, only Orthotrichum anomalum is common on rock and stone.

For more information, visit the Orthotrichum anomalum species page.

Schistidium crassipilum (Thickpoint Grimmia)

This very common little moss is another characteristic member of the urban wall top community in the lowlands. Like its associates, it is adapted to be tolerant of dry conditions. It grows in rather dense, spiky-looking cushions or low patches and close examination of its leaves with a hand lens will show them to be narrow and tapering sharply to a silvery hairpoint.

This, and other species of Schistidium, bear capsules that are sessile and largely hidden by the surrounding leaves. In winter and spring, once the capsules are mature and have opened, they catch the eye due to the vivid red colour of the capsule mouth and peristome teeth.

For more information, visit the Schistidium crassipilum species page.

Homalothecium sericeum (Silky Wall Feather-moss)

Homalothecium sericeum forms extensive patches on lime-rich walls (and tree bark). It is a glossy-looking species of a characteristic green or golden-green hue. Stems can be many centimetres long and they closely adhere to the surface, while numerous, crowded side branches with appressed leaves spread away from it. Although straight when moist, these branches curl upwards and inwards when dry, giving the dry plant a very distinctive appearance.

If you examine the long, spearhead-shaped leaves with a hand lens, you should notice that they are strongly pleated, so much so that it is often hard to discern the long single nerve that almost reaches the tip.

For more information, visit the Homalothecium sericeum species page.

Upland areas

In more acidic upland areas, you are more likely to find one or more of the Racomitrium species:

Racomitrium lanuginosum (Woolly Fringe-moss)

Racomitrium lanuginosum is a fairly ubiquitous moss in upland areas, growing not only on stone walls, but also on dry heath and raised bogs. It is another hoary moss with a long hairpoint, but doesn't form neat cushions like the preceding species; instead it grows in scruffy-looking, sometimes extensive, patches. It can be confused with other Racomitrium species, but a close look at the hairpoint with a hand lens will reveal many coarse teeth along the margins.

For more information, visit the Racomitrium lanuginosum species page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common mosses on walls - British Bryological Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you live in a lowland area with fairly basic geology, look out for these common species on stone walls, on old buildings, in churchyards etc. (scroll down for species to look for in upland areas / with more acid geology) Grimmia pulvinata (Grey-cushioned Grimmia) As its common name suggests, Grimmia pulvinata grows as neat round cushions, often with a hoary grey appearance, thanks to the long silvery hairpoints on the leaves.

# data[].attributes.headline
Factors influencing epiphytic moss and lichen distribution within Killarney National Park

# data[].attributes.subject
Factors influencing epiphytic moss and lichen distribution within Killarney National Park

# data[].attributes.body
This paper looks at what factors are affecting moss and lichen distribution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The niches of epiphytes are widely studied and have been shown to be complex involving interspecific competition, succession and predation. This study is unique in that it applies the niche concept to moss and lichen distributions within Killarney National Park, Kerry, Ireland. We studied 75 trees between three pristine ancient woodlands and measured a range of physical and biological factors to ascertain influences on epiphyte cover. The species of tree was found as the principal determinant in community structure as it bioengineers conditions such as light, temperature and humidity that the epiphytes are reliant upon. Furthermore, the bark character and trunk circumference were important. Zonation of the epiphytes was apparent with both aspect and height on the trunk. Typically, moss dominated over lichen within a niche that was relatively sheltered. Lichen tolerated drier and lighter niches often being further up the trunk on sun facing aspects. Ultimately, there was succession up the tree mediated through competition. This study highlights the complexity and interrelatedness between biotic and abiotic factors in a relatively unstudied geographical and biological area. Understanding agents behind a population's distribution enables manipulation for conservation or sustainable exploitation.

Introduction

Mosses and lichens are abundant and ubiquitous across a diverse array of biomes and latitudes ( Mezaka, Brumelis, Piterans, 2012). They fill a particularly important and often overlooked niche ( Bergamini et al., 2004) while displaying a complex distributional pattern determined not only by differential response to environmental conditions but also interspecific competition ( Harris, 1971b). Biochemically they influence nutrient and water balances ( Pypker, Unsworth, Bond, 2006; Odor et al., 2013), decomposition ( Liu et al., 2000; Hagemann and Moroni, 2015) and soil environments ( Van der Wal and Brooker, 2004). Ecologically they house and sustain rich biodiversity as habitats ( Helle and Aspi, 1983; Lindo and Gonzalez, 2010). Both groups are photosynthetic autotrophs gaining water and minerals from the atmosphere ( Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006). Since neither group require soil, ground reservoirs or mychorrizal associations to survive ( Nash, 1996; Bergamini et al., 2004) many species are commensally epiphytic ( Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Sterry, 2007). However, this increases their susceptibility to atmospheric pollution ( Beltman et al., 1980; Larsen et al., 2007) that has led to their utilisation as ecological indicators of air quality, pollution, fragmentation and disturbance ( Conti and Cecchetti, 2001; Mölder et al., 2015).

Trees stabilise understory insolation and temperature regimes and provide microhabitats for attachment, thus engineering ideal conditions for epiphytic mosses and lichens ( Mandahl-Barth, 1966; Sterry, 2007; Eaton and Ellis, 2012; Ellis, 2012). Boreal and temperate forests are particularly cool and moist resulting in high epiphyte abundance and diversity that has attracted numerous studies ( Mezaka, Brumelis, Piterans, 2012; Odor et al., 2013). These include the effect of bark pH ( Larsen et al., 2007; Mezaka, Brumelis, Piterans, 2012), aspect ( Song et al., 2015), temperature ( Hauck, 2011), inclination ( Johansson et al., 2009), humidity ( Eaton and Ellis, 2012), age ( Hofmeister et al., 2015) and light intensity ( Gauslaa et al., 2008) on epiphyte distribution.

Inter-tree variation in biotic and abiotic factors has been demonstrated to be more important when compared with stand level variation. However, few have incorporated intra-tree aspects ( Juriado, Liira, Paal, 2009). Even though hyper-oceanic forests create favourable conditions for rich diversity and abundance of epiphytes ( Hauck, 2011; Eaton and Ellis, 2012), a lot of them have been understudied. One such example is Killarney National park in south-west Ireland, which is famed for its epiphytic flora ( Cross, 1973; Cross, 1981; Kelly, 1981; Power, Igoe, Neylon, 2007), as well as being Ireland's most extensive native forest ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Mitchell et al., 2005).

Understanding the drivers of epiphyte distribution can inform forestry management to maximise diversity and protect these unique habitats within a changing world ( Schei et al., 2013). We studied factors controlling the richness, diversity and abundance of bryophytes and lichens. Here we investigate (i) whether lichen and moss richness and diversity varies between oak, holly and yew; (ii) whether moss and lichen display differential surface area cover between oak, holly and yew; and (iii) whether moss and lichen cover varied in relation to canopy cover, trunk circumference and aspect.

Materials and methods

Study site and habitat sampling strategy

The study was carried out in Killarney National Park (52. °0′N, −9°5′E; Fig. 1), which is characterized by ancient woodland pre-dating the 1600s ( Craig, 2001; O'Sullivan and Kelly, 2006; Sterry, 2007). The region has experienced relatively little deforestation and land use change enabling more accurate observation of natural interactions ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Peterken, 2001; Power, Igoe, Neylon, 2007). Killarney has Annex I status in the EU habitats directive because of its epiphyte richness and the rarity of the unique Rendianna forest dominated by English yew ( Taxus baccata) ( Smal and Fairley, 1980; Mitchell, 1990; Philip, Kelly, Mitchell, 2006). The wood is complimented by two others: Derrycunihy sessile oak wood ( Quercus petraea) ( Turner and Watt, 1939; Mitchell, 1988) and Carr wood rich in European holly ( Ilex aquifolium) ( Kelly, 1981; Mitchell and Bradshaw, 1984) centred within 10 km of each other on Lough Leane (Fig. 1). The sites were chosen to include three dominant tree species (Table 1) and for their accessibility. The distance between each sample site was relatively small reducing larger variation in precipitation, altitude and temperature that are known to effect epiphyte distributions ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Kelly, 2002; Mitchell et al., 2005).

Tree sampling strategy

Sampling occurred between 14th and 16th September 2011 using a transect bisecting each woodlands longest diameter. From an accessible point on the woodlands edge, a random number of steps were generated to a suitable trunk. Trunks unsuitable for surveying including those which had fallen, had obstructing branches and vines or a circumference at breast height (CBH) measuring less than 50 cm were excluded. The transect continued until 25 trees had been sampled, if the woodland edge was reached the transect reflected back towards the interior.

Moss, lichen and abiotic factor survey

Each tree's GPS grid reference (Garmin etrex H) was recorded. CBH was measured with a tape at breast height; 1.4 m from the ground. Trunks were divided into four faces corresponding to compass aspect. At each aspect, 1.4 m up the trunk and 10 cm away, air temperature (°C) and relative humidity (RH) were measured with a digital meter (Skywatch handheld) in addition to light intensity with a lux meter (Hanna portable). Canopy cover was estimated 50 cm away from the trunk using a convex spherical densitometer ( Lemmon, 1956).

To assess the epiphyte cover at each of the four aspects a linear string transect consisting of seven 20 × 20 cm ² quadrats was hung against the trunk 1.4 m high. This technique provided flexibility and minimised damage ( Mitchell et al., 2005; Fig. 2). Each tree was considered a data point composed as a sum of its four aspects; the total area of bark analysed per tree was 1.12 × 10 ⁴ cm ². Species richness and diversity were calculated for moss and lichen systematically at each quadrat. Richness was the number of moss and lichen species present that could be identified in the field using Watson (1981) and Whelan (2008). The Simpson's index of diversity ( D−1) (see Equation 1) provided a measure of relative species abundance, or evenness, derived from richness and surface area. It is defined as the probability that two individuals randomly selected from a sample will belong to different species. This index was not affected by the large variation in site richness nor the presence of rare epiphytes and did not assume the species list was comprehensive for the habitat.

Equation 1. Calculation of Simpson's diversity index ( D) where n = surface area on tree sample covered by an epiphyte species (cm ²); N = total area on tree sample covered by epiphytes. Values range from 0 to 1, where 1 is considered the most diverse sample.

( Simpson, 1949)

Data analysis

Species richness and the Simpson's index of diversity were not normally distributed and could not be transformed so non-parametric Kurskall-Wallis tests on median ranks were used. Significant differences between woods were differentiated by pairwise permutations of Mann Whitney U tests with Bonferroni corrections applied. Similarly, the bark surface area covered by moss and lichen, the CBH and canopy cover could not be normalised via transformation consequently Spearman's rank correlations explored the relations between them across all trees. Moss and lichen surface area grouped by aspect and tree species were normally distributed were analysed using a two-way ANOVA. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS Statistics 22 ( IBM Corp, 2013). For clarity all graphical outputs were based on untransformed data.

Results

Of 8.4 × 10 ⁵ cm ² of bark sampled across 75 trees, 16 epiphyte species were identified with seven being moss (Table 2). The mean epiphyte species richness for each tree independent of species was: moss, 3.45 ± 0.12SE; lichen, 2.99 ± 0.21SE and both 6.43 ± 0.24SE. Since epiphytes were identified within the field, the number of species may be under-representative of the true community composition. However, due to a consistent sampling strategy this does not impact the overall results of the study.

The tree species effected lichen and moss richness and diversity

There was no significant variation in moss richness between the three tree species (H ₂₄ = 0.63, p = 0.73), the mean values were 3.52 ± 0.14SE, 3.40 ± 0.18SE and 3.44 ± 0.27SE for yew, oak and holly respectively (Fig. 3). Conversely there was significant variation in both lichen richness (H 24 = 59.58, p < 0.01) and total richness (H 24 = 37.93, p < 0.01) between the tree species. Holly had the most lichen species 5.16 ± 0.18SE which was over double that of oak, 2.20 ± 0.14SE (U 24 = 43.31, p < 0.01), and yew 1.60 ± 0.29SE (U ₂₄ = 33.33, p < 0.01). Holly also had the greatest total richness of 8.60 ± 0.35SE which was significantly larger than oak's 5.60 ± 0.25SE (U ₂₄= 32.5, p < 0.01) and yew's 5.12 ± 0.23SE (U 24 = 27.84, p < 0.01) (Fig. 3).

The epiphyte community on holly was more even and diverse than that on oak and yew (H ₂₄ = 19.6, p < 0.001) (Fig. 4). Particularly holly's diversity was 0.71 ± 0.02SE being significantly higher than yew's 0.58 ± 0.02SE (U ₂₄ = 13.6, p < 0.01) and oak's 0.45 ± 0.04 (U ₂₄=16.5, p < 0.01). Oak and yew did not differ (U 24 = 1.6, p = 0.63) (Fig. 4).

Epiphyte community composition varied with 57% of mosses and 11% of lichens being ubiquitous between tree species. The most unique species was found on holly within this study; four lichens and one moss, whereas oak only had one and yew none. Lichens seemed more specialised to the tree species for example Parmeliella parvula was dominant on yew but was the rarest on oak and only Loxospora elatina was universal to all three.

Tree species had the strongest influence on moss ( F ₂ = 211.5, p < 0.001), and lichen cover ( F ₂= 177, p < 0.001) (Fig. 5). Overall coverage varied between species. Generally, yew had the greatest surface area covered by ephitphyes and holly the least; relatively yew had the greatest moss cover yew holly lichen cover.

Moss and lichen displayed differential growth on each tree species

Moss and lichen were negatively correlated ( r s 75= −0.82, p < 0.01) across all tree species (oak: r s 25= −0.40, p < 0.05; holly: r s 25= −0.36, p = 0.08; yew: r s 25 = −0.47, p < 0.05) (Fig. 6). Notable exceptions in the context of this study were the lichens Loxospora elatina and Flavoparmelia caperata that were often epiphytic on moss. Small scale distributions were observed such as Thelotrema lepadinum, Arthonia cinnabarina, Pyrenula dermatodes forming a mosaic across the smooth areas on oak while Chrysothrix candelaris dominated the indents in the bark. Clear vertical distributions were also observed, particularly on yew where at CBH Neckera crispa monopolised, midway down Eurhynchium striatum was prominent, then Thamnobryum alopecurum and finally Thuidium tamariscinum adjacent to the ground. On holly generally Dicranum scoparium dominated near ground instead of Thuidium tamariscinum.

Moss and lichen distribution showed differential responses to CBH, canopy cover, aspect

CBH

CBH showed a moderate positive correlation with the surface area of bark covered by moss ( r s 75 = 0.36, p < 0.01) conversely, there was a weak negative correlation between lichen and CBH ( r s 75 = −0.24, p < 0.05) (Fig. 7).

Aspect

Aspect did not have any effect on cover in isolation ( F ₂ = 0.23, p > 0.05). However, when taken into account with the tree species it was significantly different ( F ₆ = 3.1, p < 0.001) (Fig. 5). The mean moss cover on holly across the aspects was ~500 cm ², being one third of oak and yew cover ( p < 0.05) and displayed no difference ( p > 0.05). Holly shows the greatest cover of moss in the north while oak in the west. The variability between aspects of lichen was the inverse of the moss cover for example, yew had the greatest moss cover in the east but the lowest lichen there too.

Canopy cover

Canopy cover had a moderate positive correlation with moss ( r s 75 = 0.32, p < 0.01) and moderate negative correlation with lichen ( r s 75 = 0.32, p < 0.05).

Discussion

The tree species affected lichen and moss richness and diversity

The relation between tree species and the diversity, richness and distribution of moss and lichen species is a known phenomenon ( Juriado, Liira, Paal, 2009; Nascimbene et al., 2009a, 2009b, Kiraly et al., 2013). On a stand level heterogeneity in age and size of trees as well as abundance of dead wood has been repeatedly emphasised ( Fritz, 2009; Odor et al., 2013; Hofmeister et al., 2015). However, when comparisons are made between specific tree species a more complex distribution of moss and lichen is revealed. Of the epiphytes identified, holly was found to have the highest epiphyte total richness and diversity while oak and yew displayed similar, lower diversity levels. Furthermore, holly was characterised by the highest number and coverage of lichen species compared to oak and yew which were dominated by mosses. This is in contrast with Kiraly et al. (2013) who found an increase in lichen species richness with increased proportion of oaks within mixed forests.

Many of the epiphytes identified were unique to a single tree species which is consistent with other studies in boreal woodlands ( Nascimbene et al., 2009a, 2009b; Hauck, 2011; Odor et al., 2013). This could be related to species specific characteristics including bark pH and texture ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007; Nascimbene et al., 2013). Highly textured bark provide shelter, increased humidity, protection from predation and attachment security ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007; Ranius et al., 2008). However, the textured yew bark was dominated by shade loving Chrysothrix candelaris, perhaps due to the lower light intensity ( Whelan, 2008; Seawright, 2011).

Epiphytes have a narrow pH tolerance controlling colonisation of bark surfaces ( Watson, 1981; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Hocking et al., 2008). Oak and holly prefer acidic sandstone and so their bark is expected to have a lower pH ( Peterken, 2001) in comparison to yew that prefers basic limestone thus higher pH. Dicranum scoparium and Bartramia pomiformis favour low pH and therefore were absent from yew ( Watson, 1981; BBS, 2005). Flavoparmelia caperata was more abundant on oak and holly being adapted to acidic environments ( Larsen et al., 2007). Despite this four calcicole mosses including Neckera crispa and Thamnobryum alopecurum, were found in 'acidic woods' studies suggesting other factors are significant. Compensation can occur when the majority of resources are ideal, Thuidium tamariscinum and Thamnobryum alopecurum have been found in less basic woods if they are extremely humid ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Watson, 1981) whereas Eurhynchium striatum in ion rich environments ( Watson, 1981; BBS, 2005).

Variation of the epiphytic communities between tree species may also be due to overall lifespan, for instance holly has one tenth the lifespan of oak and yew trees ( Hocking et al., 2008). The general lichen complexity on holly could be at an intermediate point in succession, the four native species being adapted to quick growth in the relatively ephemeral habitat ( Richards, 1938; Harris, 1971b; Hocking et al., 2008). Studies have shown that community is also dependant on age. Homalothecium sericeum is found on wood around 250 years old whereas Micarea denigrata on 100 years ( Ireland, 1975; Fritz, Niklasson, Churski, 2008). Older trees are generally more textured and have greater surface areas providing more suitable epiphytic habitat ( Matthews, 1994; Fritz, Niklasson, Churski, 2008; Ranius et al., 2008). They may also reach an epiphytic climax community that many not be as diverse but often is characterised by specialist species ( Molder et al., 2015).

Moss and lichen displayed differential growth on each tree species

A clear vertical gradient was observed from the tree base to breast height. Tree bases are more sheltered with higher humidity and lower light intensity ( Richards, 1938; Harris, 1971b; Hocking et al., 2008). Here, climax communities of Thamnobryum alopecurum and Thuidium tamariscinum or Dicranum scoparium occur ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958; BBS, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2005; Armstrong and Welch, 2007). These mosses are several centimetres tall and form dense blankets completely smothering competition ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958; Ratcliffe, 1968). With height mosses are shorter and more able to cope with lower moisture like Eurhynchium striatum ( Ratcliffe et al., 1968). One study recorded double the richness in the upper trunk, perhaps due to less stable conditions, greater habitat variation or competitor fitness equality ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958). At the highest points pioneering stress resistant lichens like Micarea denigrata are concentrated where they cannot be outcompeted ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007).

Competitive, offensive or defensive strategies in both specialized oceanic and generalist moss and lichen have been recognised ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Watson, 1981; Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006). Lichens have a wider range of tolerance to moisture than moss however, they are outcompeted in wetter areas by moss through indirect shadowing and physical displacement ( Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006; Ranius et al., 2008). Intraspecific competition is often more intense as the niches have greater overlap ( Holt, 1977; Bonsall and Hassell, 1997). Direct competition where one species has specific characters to hinder others is quite controversial in lichens and mosses, but from previous studies it is apparent in certain species, especially in woodlands ( Lisci, Monte, Pacini, 2003; Armstrong and Welch, 2007). Competitive strategies gear the metabolism to a fast growth rate, mass and fecundity at the sacrifice of hardiness whereas, stress resistant strategists are the reverse. Mosses tend to adopt an offensive strategy being fast growing, dense and tall although this has also been adopted by some lichen species also ( Bergamini et al., 2004). Although rare within the current study, lichen may also use moss as a substrate where space limited, intensifying competition further. As observed on holly, lichen competition is more complex ( Whelan, 2008; Seawright, 2011). Foliose species, such as Flavoparmelia caperata, are able to dominate large areas midway up the tree by smothering competitors via thick semidetached growth ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007). Some actively engage in allelopathy producing enzymes and antibiotics to dissolve tissue as well as phenolic secondary metabolites like vulpinic acid which prevent germination and herbivory ( Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006; Armstrong and Welch, 2007). Crustose species, Thelotrema lepadinum, Arthonia cinnabarina and Pyrenula dermatodes, cling to the bark tightly and find it difficult to suppress other species with mass ( Whelan, 2008; Seawright, 2011). Instead they are often pioneers withstanding drier conditions and commonly secrete defensive metabolites ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007). Frequently in areas where more than two species occur truce margins are formed to conserve energy amongst a highly antagonistic environment ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007).

Competition between epiphytes for light and moisture is mediated by wider interactions which can reset succession and create heterogeneous mosaics ( Peterken, 2001; Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006). Large areas of the woodland floor was covered in moss blankets greater than 1 cm thick which are relatively unpalatable compared to many other understory plants like wood-sorrel ( Oxalis spp.) and bilberries ( Vaccinium spp.) ( Cross 1973; Cross, 1981). Consequently a prominent 1.2 m browsing line exists from grazers like the introduced sika ( Cervus nippon) and indigenous red deer ( Cervus elaphus) which can damage trunks by clipping and antler stripping. Browsing damage has intensified since the loss of predators like golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos) and grey wolf ( Canis lupus lupus) ( Philip, Kelly, Mitchell, 2006). Direct herbivory pressure on epiphytes occurs despite the presence of defensive alkaloid cardio-toxins ( Kelly, 1981; Mitchell, 1990; Kelly, 2002; Tiwary et al., 2005). Lichens can be consumed by footmen moths ( Eilema spp.) and Kerry slugs ( Geomalacus maculosus) ( Mandahl-Barth, 1966; Townsend, Waring, Lewington, 2004) whereas accounts of ants ( Formicidae spp.), slugs ( Veronicelloidea spp.) and voles ( Arvicolinae spp.) have been recorded ( NPWS, 2007; Monthey and Dudzik, 2010).

Moss and lichen distribution showed differential responses to canopy cover, CBH and aspect

Canopy cover

Canopy cover had a moderate positive correlation with moss and moderate negative correlation with lichen. The positive association between canopy cover and moss could be explained in terms of local humidity where shaded conditions protect moss from wind and desiccation ( Kiraly et al., 2013). At a broader scale is the canopy type; denser canopies are correlated with greater humidity and thermal stability at the expense of light intensity and maximum temperature. Holly-dominated woods have sparse canopies, often being found in clearings ( Peterken, 2001). Oak wood is intermediary being taller and having denser leaves whereas yew wood casts intense shade due to rot resistant lateral growth ( Smal and Fairley, 1980). It should be noted that holly and yew are more stable environments for moss and lichen as they are evergreen.

CBH

Trees with a larger CBH were colonised by more moss than lichen. Larger trees have been shown to have higher lichen biomass ( Arseneau, Sirosis, Ouellet, 1997), however, this is a complex relationship as CBH is often representative of age that is interrelated to surface area, bark texture, microclimate and time of colonisation. Within the current study, yew had the greatest CBH but was dominated by moss suggesting that CBH is not always the dominating factor.

Aspect

The thick canopies of oak and yews may have diminished differences between aspects in moss and lichen cover. Because, holly showed the greatest variation between the aspects the canopy is less dense, allowing more radiation on the southern and western bark as the sun passes over the horizon. This favours species more resistant to desiccation and larger abiotic fluctuations ( Ratcliffe, 1968). It is a common misconception that the north and east sides are always the most shaded and humid areas in the northern hemisphere because topography is also important ( Matthews, 1994). This is demonstrated by the fact that there is a large mountain range to the west blocking the sun.

At the more exposed sites lichen cover dominated while moss was retarded. Many lichen species are adapted to drier environments compared to moss which has a reduced competitive ability in these areas. The capacity to withstand aridity might be a mixture of morphology being low lying to surface where there is greater moisture and less exposed surface area for loss ( Hocking et al., 2008). Likewise, in shaded sides moss grows relatively faster and can reach greater heights that can hinder lichen through reducing area and light intensity ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958). However, at an individual level the pattern was not necessarily consistent, sometimes the side farthest from the sun leant toward the ground. Moss and lichen found attachment here difficult.

Conclusion

Bryophytes and lichens are incredibly important not just phylogenetically but environmentally ( Mitchell et al., 2005), as indicators of pollution, nutrient recycler and fixers, producers in food webs and invertebrate habitat providers ( Peterken, 2001; Oksanen, 2006; Monthey and Dudzik, 2010). Economically they can be beneficial through medicine, dyes and as a food source ( Knowles, 1929; Oksanen, 2006; Monthey and Dudzik, 2010). Therefore, improvement of moss and lichen diversity by forest management increasing tree species diversity is likely to benefit forest function (Nascimbene et al., 2013). The niches of moss and lichens are highly complex and interlinked, however, the tree species is paramount as it defines the abiotic conditions of the substrate and atmosphere as well as other populations interacting with the epiphytes. pH is fundamental to the community but there are homologous variables across the woods. Sub-patterns that act on the humidity, light and temperature across individual trees include aspect, age, bark texture and height from ground. Niches are wettest and darkest in the crevasses at the tree base on the side receiving the least insolation, frequently the north. As one travels up the tree more light penetrates through but wind currents and evaporation lower the humidity. Ultimately, a continuous change in niche gradient occurs. Moss tend to have a niche that require greater humidity and light requirements than lichen ( Lisci, Monte, Pacini, 2003). Succession is apparent since moss tends to outcompete lichen due to its mass and growth limiting space available ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958; Harris, 1971a). Consequently, lichens are generally found in less hospitable upper reaches. Within similar niches there is intense competition, particularly between the defensive crustoses and offensive folioses, through allelopathy and mechanical destruction. This increases with richness which is constantly moderated by predation and competition.

Further study could consider whether these findings persist across a wider sample of forest type and could benefit with a more extensive identification method. Controlled experimental design could determine the successional hierarchy of moss and lichen under differing conditions.

Author biography

Following his MNatSci, Kris Sales has remained at UEA as a PhD student to study how the fertility of male Coleoptera and Lepidoptera is affected by climate change. He designed the epiphyte study during the assessment period of a second year Field Ecology module. Moreover, he assisted with all aspects of the project, particularly planning, analysis, figure creation and writing the transcripts.

Jessie Gardner also studied Natural Sciences and has just embarked on a PhD with the British Antarctic Survey focusing on the effect of ocean acidification and warming on pteropods. She assisted through all aspects of the project, particularly epiphyte identification, reviewing literature, writing transcripts and editing them.

Laurie Kerr completed her ecology degree at UEA and currently is in France teaching English. She assisted with the data collection, some analysis and reviewed the first transcript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank supervisor Dr Iain Barr for facilitating conceptualisation, data collection and comments during writing the transcript. Furthermore, we give thanks to Chris Jones, Dr Emmi Hall and Dave Showler for contribution to scientific method. Thanks to Dr Danni Gilroy, Liam Crowther and to the anonymous reviewers of Bioscience Horizons for comments on our transcripts. Finally we would also like to thank all UEA staff and peers who made the experience enjoyable.

Funding

Research was funded by the School of Biological Sciences, UEA.

References

Author notes

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Factors influencing epiphytic moss and lichen distribution within Killarney National Park

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract. The niches of epiphytes are widely studied and have been shown to be complex involving interspecific competition, succession and predation. This

# data[].attributes.headline
Factors influencing epiphytic moss and lichen distribution within Killarney National Park

# data[].attributes.subject
Factors influencing epiphytic moss and lichen distribution within Killarney National Park

# data[].attributes.body
This paper looks at what factors are affecting moss and lichen distribution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The niches of epiphytes are widely studied and have been shown to be complex involving interspecific competition, succession and predation. This study is unique in that it applies the niche concept to moss and lichen distributions within Killarney National Park, Kerry, Ireland. We studied 75 trees between three pristine ancient woodlands and measured a range of physical and biological factors to ascertain influences on epiphyte cover. The species of tree was found as the principal determinant in community structure as it bioengineers conditions such as light, temperature and humidity that the epiphytes are reliant upon. Furthermore, the bark character and trunk circumference were important. Zonation of the epiphytes was apparent with both aspect and height on the trunk. Typically, moss dominated over lichen within a niche that was relatively sheltered. Lichen tolerated drier and lighter niches often being further up the trunk on sun facing aspects. Ultimately, there was succession up the tree mediated through competition. This study highlights the complexity and interrelatedness between biotic and abiotic factors in a relatively unstudied geographical and biological area. Understanding agents behind a population's distribution enables manipulation for conservation or sustainable exploitation.

Introduction

Mosses and lichens are abundant and ubiquitous across a diverse array of biomes and latitudes ( Mezaka, Brumelis, Piterans, 2012). They fill a particularly important and often overlooked niche ( Bergamini et al., 2004) while displaying a complex distributional pattern determined not only by differential response to environmental conditions but also interspecific competition ( Harris, 1971b). Biochemically they influence nutrient and water balances ( Pypker, Unsworth, Bond, 2006; Odor et al., 2013), decomposition ( Liu et al., 2000; Hagemann and Moroni, 2015) and soil environments ( Van der Wal and Brooker, 2004). Ecologically they house and sustain rich biodiversity as habitats ( Helle and Aspi, 1983; Lindo and Gonzalez, 2010). Both groups are photosynthetic autotrophs gaining water and minerals from the atmosphere ( Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006). Since neither group require soil, ground reservoirs or mychorrizal associations to survive ( Nash, 1996; Bergamini et al., 2004) many species are commensally epiphytic ( Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Sterry, 2007). However, this increases their susceptibility to atmospheric pollution ( Beltman et al., 1980; Larsen et al., 2007) that has led to their utilisation as ecological indicators of air quality, pollution, fragmentation and disturbance ( Conti and Cecchetti, 2001; Mölder et al., 2015).

Trees stabilise understory insolation and temperature regimes and provide microhabitats for attachment, thus engineering ideal conditions for epiphytic mosses and lichens ( Mandahl-Barth, 1966; Sterry, 2007; Eaton and Ellis, 2012; Ellis, 2012). Boreal and temperate forests are particularly cool and moist resulting in high epiphyte abundance and diversity that has attracted numerous studies ( Mezaka, Brumelis, Piterans, 2012; Odor et al., 2013). These include the effect of bark pH ( Larsen et al., 2007; Mezaka, Brumelis, Piterans, 2012), aspect ( Song et al., 2015), temperature ( Hauck, 2011), inclination ( Johansson et al., 2009), humidity ( Eaton and Ellis, 2012), age ( Hofmeister et al., 2015) and light intensity ( Gauslaa et al., 2008) on epiphyte distribution.

Inter-tree variation in biotic and abiotic factors has been demonstrated to be more important when compared with stand level variation. However, few have incorporated intra-tree aspects ( Juriado, Liira, Paal, 2009). Even though hyper-oceanic forests create favourable conditions for rich diversity and abundance of epiphytes ( Hauck, 2011; Eaton and Ellis, 2012), a lot of them have been understudied. One such example is Killarney National park in south-west Ireland, which is famed for its epiphytic flora ( Cross, 1973; Cross, 1981; Kelly, 1981; Power, Igoe, Neylon, 2007), as well as being Ireland's most extensive native forest ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Mitchell et al., 2005).

Understanding the drivers of epiphyte distribution can inform forestry management to maximise diversity and protect these unique habitats within a changing world ( Schei et al., 2013). We studied factors controlling the richness, diversity and abundance of bryophytes and lichens. Here we investigate (i) whether lichen and moss richness and diversity varies between oak, holly and yew; (ii) whether moss and lichen display differential surface area cover between oak, holly and yew; and (iii) whether moss and lichen cover varied in relation to canopy cover, trunk circumference and aspect.

Materials and methods

Study site and habitat sampling strategy

The study was carried out in Killarney National Park (52. °0′N, −9°5′E; Fig. 1), which is characterized by ancient woodland pre-dating the 1600s ( Craig, 2001; O'Sullivan and Kelly, 2006; Sterry, 2007). The region has experienced relatively little deforestation and land use change enabling more accurate observation of natural interactions ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Peterken, 2001; Power, Igoe, Neylon, 2007). Killarney has Annex I status in the EU habitats directive because of its epiphyte richness and the rarity of the unique Rendianna forest dominated by English yew ( Taxus baccata) ( Smal and Fairley, 1980; Mitchell, 1990; Philip, Kelly, Mitchell, 2006). The wood is complimented by two others: Derrycunihy sessile oak wood ( Quercus petraea) ( Turner and Watt, 1939; Mitchell, 1988) and Carr wood rich in European holly ( Ilex aquifolium) ( Kelly, 1981; Mitchell and Bradshaw, 1984) centred within 10 km of each other on Lough Leane (Fig. 1). The sites were chosen to include three dominant tree species (Table 1) and for their accessibility. The distance between each sample site was relatively small reducing larger variation in precipitation, altitude and temperature that are known to effect epiphyte distributions ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Kelly, 2002; Mitchell et al., 2005).

Tree sampling strategy

Sampling occurred between 14th and 16th September 2011 using a transect bisecting each woodlands longest diameter. From an accessible point on the woodlands edge, a random number of steps were generated to a suitable trunk. Trunks unsuitable for surveying including those which had fallen, had obstructing branches and vines or a circumference at breast height (CBH) measuring less than 50 cm were excluded. The transect continued until 25 trees had been sampled, if the woodland edge was reached the transect reflected back towards the interior.

Moss, lichen and abiotic factor survey

Each tree's GPS grid reference (Garmin etrex H) was recorded. CBH was measured with a tape at breast height; 1.4 m from the ground. Trunks were divided into four faces corresponding to compass aspect. At each aspect, 1.4 m up the trunk and 10 cm away, air temperature (°C) and relative humidity (RH) were measured with a digital meter (Skywatch handheld) in addition to light intensity with a lux meter (Hanna portable). Canopy cover was estimated 50 cm away from the trunk using a convex spherical densitometer ( Lemmon, 1956).

To assess the epiphyte cover at each of the four aspects a linear string transect consisting of seven 20 × 20 cm ² quadrats was hung against the trunk 1.4 m high. This technique provided flexibility and minimised damage ( Mitchell et al., 2005; Fig. 2). Each tree was considered a data point composed as a sum of its four aspects; the total area of bark analysed per tree was 1.12 × 10 ⁴ cm ². Species richness and diversity were calculated for moss and lichen systematically at each quadrat. Richness was the number of moss and lichen species present that could be identified in the field using Watson (1981) and Whelan (2008). The Simpson's index of diversity ( D−1) (see Equation 1) provided a measure of relative species abundance, or evenness, derived from richness and surface area. It is defined as the probability that two individuals randomly selected from a sample will belong to different species. This index was not affected by the large variation in site richness nor the presence of rare epiphytes and did not assume the species list was comprehensive for the habitat.

Equation 1. Calculation of Simpson's diversity index ( D) where n = surface area on tree sample covered by an epiphyte species (cm ²); N = total area on tree sample covered by epiphytes. Values range from 0 to 1, where 1 is considered the most diverse sample.

( Simpson, 1949)

Data analysis

Species richness and the Simpson's index of diversity were not normally distributed and could not be transformed so non-parametric Kurskall-Wallis tests on median ranks were used. Significant differences between woods were differentiated by pairwise permutations of Mann Whitney U tests with Bonferroni corrections applied. Similarly, the bark surface area covered by moss and lichen, the CBH and canopy cover could not be normalised via transformation consequently Spearman's rank correlations explored the relations between them across all trees. Moss and lichen surface area grouped by aspect and tree species were normally distributed were analysed using a two-way ANOVA. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS Statistics 22 ( IBM Corp, 2013). For clarity all graphical outputs were based on untransformed data.

Results

Of 8.4 × 10 ⁵ cm ² of bark sampled across 75 trees, 16 epiphyte species were identified with seven being moss (Table 2). The mean epiphyte species richness for each tree independent of species was: moss, 3.45 ± 0.12SE; lichen, 2.99 ± 0.21SE and both 6.43 ± 0.24SE. Since epiphytes were identified within the field, the number of species may be under-representative of the true community composition. However, due to a consistent sampling strategy this does not impact the overall results of the study.

The tree species effected lichen and moss richness and diversity

There was no significant variation in moss richness between the three tree species (H ₂₄ = 0.63, p = 0.73), the mean values were 3.52 ± 0.14SE, 3.40 ± 0.18SE and 3.44 ± 0.27SE for yew, oak and holly respectively (Fig. 3). Conversely there was significant variation in both lichen richness (H 24 = 59.58, p < 0.01) and total richness (H 24 = 37.93, p < 0.01) between the tree species. Holly had the most lichen species 5.16 ± 0.18SE which was over double that of oak, 2.20 ± 0.14SE (U 24 = 43.31, p < 0.01), and yew 1.60 ± 0.29SE (U ₂₄ = 33.33, p < 0.01). Holly also had the greatest total richness of 8.60 ± 0.35SE which was significantly larger than oak's 5.60 ± 0.25SE (U ₂₄= 32.5, p < 0.01) and yew's 5.12 ± 0.23SE (U 24 = 27.84, p < 0.01) (Fig. 3).

The epiphyte community on holly was more even and diverse than that on oak and yew (H ₂₄ = 19.6, p < 0.001) (Fig. 4). Particularly holly's diversity was 0.71 ± 0.02SE being significantly higher than yew's 0.58 ± 0.02SE (U ₂₄ = 13.6, p < 0.01) and oak's 0.45 ± 0.04 (U ₂₄=16.5, p < 0.01). Oak and yew did not differ (U 24 = 1.6, p = 0.63) (Fig. 4).

Epiphyte community composition varied with 57% of mosses and 11% of lichens being ubiquitous between tree species. The most unique species was found on holly within this study; four lichens and one moss, whereas oak only had one and yew none. Lichens seemed more specialised to the tree species for example Parmeliella parvula was dominant on yew but was the rarest on oak and only Loxospora elatina was universal to all three.

Tree species had the strongest influence on moss ( F ₂ = 211.5, p < 0.001), and lichen cover ( F ₂= 177, p < 0.001) (Fig. 5). Overall coverage varied between species. Generally, yew had the greatest surface area covered by ephitphyes and holly the least; relatively yew had the greatest moss cover yew holly lichen cover.

Moss and lichen displayed differential growth on each tree species

Moss and lichen were negatively correlated ( r s 75= −0.82, p < 0.01) across all tree species (oak: r s 25= −0.40, p < 0.05; holly: r s 25= −0.36, p = 0.08; yew: r s 25 = −0.47, p < 0.05) (Fig. 6). Notable exceptions in the context of this study were the lichens Loxospora elatina and Flavoparmelia caperata that were often epiphytic on moss. Small scale distributions were observed such as Thelotrema lepadinum, Arthonia cinnabarina, Pyrenula dermatodes forming a mosaic across the smooth areas on oak while Chrysothrix candelaris dominated the indents in the bark. Clear vertical distributions were also observed, particularly on yew where at CBH Neckera crispa monopolised, midway down Eurhynchium striatum was prominent, then Thamnobryum alopecurum and finally Thuidium tamariscinum adjacent to the ground. On holly generally Dicranum scoparium dominated near ground instead of Thuidium tamariscinum.

Moss and lichen distribution showed differential responses to CBH, canopy cover, aspect

CBH

CBH showed a moderate positive correlation with the surface area of bark covered by moss ( r s 75 = 0.36, p < 0.01) conversely, there was a weak negative correlation between lichen and CBH ( r s 75 = −0.24, p < 0.05) (Fig. 7).

Aspect

Aspect did not have any effect on cover in isolation ( F ₂ = 0.23, p > 0.05). However, when taken into account with the tree species it was significantly different ( F ₆ = 3.1, p < 0.001) (Fig. 5). The mean moss cover on holly across the aspects was ~500 cm ², being one third of oak and yew cover ( p < 0.05) and displayed no difference ( p > 0.05). Holly shows the greatest cover of moss in the north while oak in the west. The variability between aspects of lichen was the inverse of the moss cover for example, yew had the greatest moss cover in the east but the lowest lichen there too.

Canopy cover

Canopy cover had a moderate positive correlation with moss ( r s 75 = 0.32, p < 0.01) and moderate negative correlation with lichen ( r s 75 = 0.32, p < 0.05).

Discussion

The tree species affected lichen and moss richness and diversity

The relation between tree species and the diversity, richness and distribution of moss and lichen species is a known phenomenon ( Juriado, Liira, Paal, 2009; Nascimbene et al., 2009a, 2009b, Kiraly et al., 2013). On a stand level heterogeneity in age and size of trees as well as abundance of dead wood has been repeatedly emphasised ( Fritz, 2009; Odor et al., 2013; Hofmeister et al., 2015). However, when comparisons are made between specific tree species a more complex distribution of moss and lichen is revealed. Of the epiphytes identified, holly was found to have the highest epiphyte total richness and diversity while oak and yew displayed similar, lower diversity levels. Furthermore, holly was characterised by the highest number and coverage of lichen species compared to oak and yew which were dominated by mosses. This is in contrast with Kiraly et al. (2013) who found an increase in lichen species richness with increased proportion of oaks within mixed forests.

Many of the epiphytes identified were unique to a single tree species which is consistent with other studies in boreal woodlands ( Nascimbene et al., 2009a, 2009b; Hauck, 2011; Odor et al., 2013). This could be related to species specific characteristics including bark pH and texture ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007; Nascimbene et al., 2013). Highly textured bark provide shelter, increased humidity, protection from predation and attachment security ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007; Ranius et al., 2008). However, the textured yew bark was dominated by shade loving Chrysothrix candelaris, perhaps due to the lower light intensity ( Whelan, 2008; Seawright, 2011).

Epiphytes have a narrow pH tolerance controlling colonisation of bark surfaces ( Watson, 1981; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Hocking et al., 2008). Oak and holly prefer acidic sandstone and so their bark is expected to have a lower pH ( Peterken, 2001) in comparison to yew that prefers basic limestone thus higher pH. Dicranum scoparium and Bartramia pomiformis favour low pH and therefore were absent from yew ( Watson, 1981; BBS, 2005). Flavoparmelia caperata was more abundant on oak and holly being adapted to acidic environments ( Larsen et al., 2007). Despite this four calcicole mosses including Neckera crispa and Thamnobryum alopecurum, were found in 'acidic woods' studies suggesting other factors are significant. Compensation can occur when the majority of resources are ideal, Thuidium tamariscinum and Thamnobryum alopecurum have been found in less basic woods if they are extremely humid ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Watson, 1981) whereas Eurhynchium striatum in ion rich environments ( Watson, 1981; BBS, 2005).

Variation of the epiphytic communities between tree species may also be due to overall lifespan, for instance holly has one tenth the lifespan of oak and yew trees ( Hocking et al., 2008). The general lichen complexity on holly could be at an intermediate point in succession, the four native species being adapted to quick growth in the relatively ephemeral habitat ( Richards, 1938; Harris, 1971b; Hocking et al., 2008). Studies have shown that community is also dependant on age. Homalothecium sericeum is found on wood around 250 years old whereas Micarea denigrata on 100 years ( Ireland, 1975; Fritz, Niklasson, Churski, 2008). Older trees are generally more textured and have greater surface areas providing more suitable epiphytic habitat ( Matthews, 1994; Fritz, Niklasson, Churski, 2008; Ranius et al., 2008). They may also reach an epiphytic climax community that many not be as diverse but often is characterised by specialist species ( Molder et al., 2015).

Moss and lichen displayed differential growth on each tree species

A clear vertical gradient was observed from the tree base to breast height. Tree bases are more sheltered with higher humidity and lower light intensity ( Richards, 1938; Harris, 1971b; Hocking et al., 2008). Here, climax communities of Thamnobryum alopecurum and Thuidium tamariscinum or Dicranum scoparium occur ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958; BBS, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2005; Armstrong and Welch, 2007). These mosses are several centimetres tall and form dense blankets completely smothering competition ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958; Ratcliffe, 1968). With height mosses are shorter and more able to cope with lower moisture like Eurhynchium striatum ( Ratcliffe et al., 1968). One study recorded double the richness in the upper trunk, perhaps due to less stable conditions, greater habitat variation or competitor fitness equality ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958). At the highest points pioneering stress resistant lichens like Micarea denigrata are concentrated where they cannot be outcompeted ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007).

Competitive, offensive or defensive strategies in both specialized oceanic and generalist moss and lichen have been recognised ( Ratcliffe, 1968; Watson, 1981; Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006). Lichens have a wider range of tolerance to moisture than moss however, they are outcompeted in wetter areas by moss through indirect shadowing and physical displacement ( Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006; Ranius et al., 2008). Intraspecific competition is often more intense as the niches have greater overlap ( Holt, 1977; Bonsall and Hassell, 1997). Direct competition where one species has specific characters to hinder others is quite controversial in lichens and mosses, but from previous studies it is apparent in certain species, especially in woodlands ( Lisci, Monte, Pacini, 2003; Armstrong and Welch, 2007). Competitive strategies gear the metabolism to a fast growth rate, mass and fecundity at the sacrifice of hardiness whereas, stress resistant strategists are the reverse. Mosses tend to adopt an offensive strategy being fast growing, dense and tall although this has also been adopted by some lichen species also ( Bergamini et al., 2004). Although rare within the current study, lichen may also use moss as a substrate where space limited, intensifying competition further. As observed on holly, lichen competition is more complex ( Whelan, 2008; Seawright, 2011). Foliose species, such as Flavoparmelia caperata, are able to dominate large areas midway up the tree by smothering competitors via thick semidetached growth ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007). Some actively engage in allelopathy producing enzymes and antibiotics to dissolve tissue as well as phenolic secondary metabolites like vulpinic acid which prevent germination and herbivory ( Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006; Armstrong and Welch, 2007). Crustose species, Thelotrema lepadinum, Arthonia cinnabarina and Pyrenula dermatodes, cling to the bark tightly and find it difficult to suppress other species with mass ( Whelan, 2008; Seawright, 2011). Instead they are often pioneers withstanding drier conditions and commonly secrete defensive metabolites ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007). Frequently in areas where more than two species occur truce margins are formed to conserve energy amongst a highly antagonistic environment ( Armstrong and Welch, 2007).

Competition between epiphytes for light and moisture is mediated by wider interactions which can reset succession and create heterogeneous mosaics ( Peterken, 2001; Begon, Townsend, Harper, 2006). Large areas of the woodland floor was covered in moss blankets greater than 1 cm thick which are relatively unpalatable compared to many other understory plants like wood-sorrel ( Oxalis spp.) and bilberries ( Vaccinium spp.) ( Cross 1973; Cross, 1981). Consequently a prominent 1.2 m browsing line exists from grazers like the introduced sika ( Cervus nippon) and indigenous red deer ( Cervus elaphus) which can damage trunks by clipping and antler stripping. Browsing damage has intensified since the loss of predators like golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos) and grey wolf ( Canis lupus lupus) ( Philip, Kelly, Mitchell, 2006). Direct herbivory pressure on epiphytes occurs despite the presence of defensive alkaloid cardio-toxins ( Kelly, 1981; Mitchell, 1990; Kelly, 2002; Tiwary et al., 2005). Lichens can be consumed by footmen moths ( Eilema spp.) and Kerry slugs ( Geomalacus maculosus) ( Mandahl-Barth, 1966; Townsend, Waring, Lewington, 2004) whereas accounts of ants ( Formicidae spp.), slugs ( Veronicelloidea spp.) and voles ( Arvicolinae spp.) have been recorded ( NPWS, 2007; Monthey and Dudzik, 2010).

Moss and lichen distribution showed differential responses to canopy cover, CBH and aspect

Canopy cover

Canopy cover had a moderate positive correlation with moss and moderate negative correlation with lichen. The positive association between canopy cover and moss could be explained in terms of local humidity where shaded conditions protect moss from wind and desiccation ( Kiraly et al., 2013). At a broader scale is the canopy type; denser canopies are correlated with greater humidity and thermal stability at the expense of light intensity and maximum temperature. Holly-dominated woods have sparse canopies, often being found in clearings ( Peterken, 2001). Oak wood is intermediary being taller and having denser leaves whereas yew wood casts intense shade due to rot resistant lateral growth ( Smal and Fairley, 1980). It should be noted that holly and yew are more stable environments for moss and lichen as they are evergreen.

CBH

Trees with a larger CBH were colonised by more moss than lichen. Larger trees have been shown to have higher lichen biomass ( Arseneau, Sirosis, Ouellet, 1997), however, this is a complex relationship as CBH is often representative of age that is interrelated to surface area, bark texture, microclimate and time of colonisation. Within the current study, yew had the greatest CBH but was dominated by moss suggesting that CBH is not always the dominating factor.

Aspect

The thick canopies of oak and yews may have diminished differences between aspects in moss and lichen cover. Because, holly showed the greatest variation between the aspects the canopy is less dense, allowing more radiation on the southern and western bark as the sun passes over the horizon. This favours species more resistant to desiccation and larger abiotic fluctuations ( Ratcliffe, 1968). It is a common misconception that the north and east sides are always the most shaded and humid areas in the northern hemisphere because topography is also important ( Matthews, 1994). This is demonstrated by the fact that there is a large mountain range to the west blocking the sun.

At the more exposed sites lichen cover dominated while moss was retarded. Many lichen species are adapted to drier environments compared to moss which has a reduced competitive ability in these areas. The capacity to withstand aridity might be a mixture of morphology being low lying to surface where there is greater moisture and less exposed surface area for loss ( Hocking et al., 2008). Likewise, in shaded sides moss grows relatively faster and can reach greater heights that can hinder lichen through reducing area and light intensity ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958). However, at an individual level the pattern was not necessarily consistent, sometimes the side farthest from the sun leant toward the ground. Moss and lichen found attachment here difficult.

Conclusion

Bryophytes and lichens are incredibly important not just phylogenetically but environmentally ( Mitchell et al., 2005), as indicators of pollution, nutrient recycler and fixers, producers in food webs and invertebrate habitat providers ( Peterken, 2001; Oksanen, 2006; Monthey and Dudzik, 2010). Economically they can be beneficial through medicine, dyes and as a food source ( Knowles, 1929; Oksanen, 2006; Monthey and Dudzik, 2010). Therefore, improvement of moss and lichen diversity by forest management increasing tree species diversity is likely to benefit forest function (Nascimbene et al., 2013). The niches of moss and lichens are highly complex and interlinked, however, the tree species is paramount as it defines the abiotic conditions of the substrate and atmosphere as well as other populations interacting with the epiphytes. pH is fundamental to the community but there are homologous variables across the woods. Sub-patterns that act on the humidity, light and temperature across individual trees include aspect, age, bark texture and height from ground. Niches are wettest and darkest in the crevasses at the tree base on the side receiving the least insolation, frequently the north. As one travels up the tree more light penetrates through but wind currents and evaporation lower the humidity. Ultimately, a continuous change in niche gradient occurs. Moss tend to have a niche that require greater humidity and light requirements than lichen ( Lisci, Monte, Pacini, 2003). Succession is apparent since moss tends to outcompete lichen due to its mass and growth limiting space available ( Thomas and Polwart, 1958; Harris, 1971a). Consequently, lichens are generally found in less hospitable upper reaches. Within similar niches there is intense competition, particularly between the defensive crustoses and offensive folioses, through allelopathy and mechanical destruction. This increases with richness which is constantly moderated by predation and competition.

Further study could consider whether these findings persist across a wider sample of forest type and could benefit with a more extensive identification method. Controlled experimental design could determine the successional hierarchy of moss and lichen under differing conditions.

Author biography

Following his MNatSci, Kris Sales has remained at UEA as a PhD student to study how the fertility of male Coleoptera and Lepidoptera is affected by climate change. He designed the epiphyte study during the assessment period of a second year Field Ecology module. Moreover, he assisted with all aspects of the project, particularly planning, analysis, figure creation and writing the transcripts.

Jessie Gardner also studied Natural Sciences and has just embarked on a PhD with the British Antarctic Survey focusing on the effect of ocean acidification and warming on pteropods. She assisted through all aspects of the project, particularly epiphyte identification, reviewing literature, writing transcripts and editing them.

Laurie Kerr completed her ecology degree at UEA and currently is in France teaching English. She assisted with the data collection, some analysis and reviewed the first transcript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank supervisor Dr Iain Barr for facilitating conceptualisation, data collection and comments during writing the transcript. Furthermore, we give thanks to Chris Jones, Dr Emmi Hall and Dave Showler for contribution to scientific method. Thanks to Dr Danni Gilroy, Liam Crowther and to the anonymous reviewers of Bioscience Horizons for comments on our transcripts. Finally we would also like to thank all UEA staff and peers who made the experience enjoyable.

Funding

Research was funded by the School of Biological Sciences, UEA.

References

Author notes

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Factors influencing epiphytic moss and lichen distribution within Killarney National Park

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract. The niches of epiphytes are widely studied and have been shown to be complex involving interspecific competition, succession and predation. This

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A project to study the flora of dry stone walls in Britain and Ireland

Introduction - What is a dry stone wall? - this is a good place to start.

Papers relating to dry stone walls in various parts of the country:

Miscellaneous data - Published references to dry stone wall flora
Dry Stone Wall News - April 2010

A colourful 12-page booklet is available. This is a valuable guide to conserving the community of plants, lichens and fungi which grow on limestone dry stone walls, and will be useful to anyone involved in professional or volunteer work with these walls.

Gallery pages

Forum for online discussions

Links to other sites of interest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A project to study the flora of dry stone walls in Britain and Ireland Introduction - What is a dry stone wall? - this is a good place to start. Papers relating to dry stone walls in various parts of the country: Miscellaneous data - Published references to dry stone wall flora Dry Stone Wall News - April 2010 A colourful 12-page booklet is available.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opal air quality survey - lichens on trees

# data[].attributes.subject
Opal air quality survey - lichens on trees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One day sitting in my usual place at the kitchen table, which has a direct view of the wall which bounds the garden, I had a perfect view of a grey squirrel moving along it. The wall links a short hedge to a birch tree and then to the trees in the bottom of the garden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How

Free standing dry stone walls require maintenance to retain their structural integrity as well as their continued value for wildlife. Walls with a degree of dereliction are often more valuable for wildlife as there tend to be more nooks and crannies from stones having fallen out, but at this point they can quickly deteriorate. Once out of condition, they can quickly lose height as a result of weather, animal and human activity and drastically reduce in wildlife value. However, it is important to note that piles of rubble created as walls deteriorate can be valuable for reptiles and amphibians as hibernation features or for shelter.

Work to repair stone walls and any removal of stone piles is best undertaken in the spring and summer, outside of hibernation periods for wildlife.

It is important to keep a 2ft strip either side of the wall free of vigorous shrub and tree growth. If they are left to grow unchecked they can often push walls over, while low hanging branches can grow into walls and cause stones to be dislodged. Management of shrubs and trees is best undertaken every few years, during autumn and winter to avoid the bird breeding season.

If a wall is known to support warmth-loving wildlife, it may be useful to regularly clear shrubs and trees growing in front of the south-face which may block the sun. Where a mature tree's roots are growing under a dry stone wall, consider building a tree root bridge when restoring walls to allow the wall and tree to coexist. Be aware that root holes and voids could be used by amphibians and reptiles as hibernation areas, so care should be taken to assess this in advance of any work.

The growing recognition of the value of dry stone walls means that there is now a network of trained craftsmen who can repair walls to a high standard that may well last a lifetime. If you already have some of the skills required to repair a dry stone wall, it is important that any work undertaken properly mimics the existing wall's character. Where a section of wall has collapsed or started to collapse, dismantle a 'V' shaped section around the collapse to rebuild. By looking at the cross section of the exposed wall, it should be possible to match the existing style. It is important to start with larger stones at the bottom with the longest length facing into the wall. Walls should be built with the stones in each layer level and the joins bridged by the stones above, as seen in brick walls. When re-using stones which have fallen to the ground, it is useful to reposition them with any lichen or moss growth facing outwards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dry stone walls Dry stone walls are made without mortar or cement, and have traditionally been used as boundaries for centuries. They are a valuable part of the cultural landscape of many regions of the UK. What Dry stone walls are found mainly where rock tends to be closer to the surface, and trees and...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woodland Invertebrates - British Animals - Woodland Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out about the millions of insects and invertebrates that live in UK woods with ID tips and images.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rich, unique landscapes of Britain's ancient woodlands are full of both natural and archaeological features.

The tree canopy provides shelter and a plethora of insects for woodland birds. Large, gnarly trunks have great crevices and holes, perfect for sheltering owls, bats, woodpeckers and insects. Gaps in between thick, exposed roots are ideal hideaways for small mammals, foxes and badgers.

Incredibly, the English oak can live for over a thousand years and supports more native wildlife than any other tree species in ancient woodland.

A fascinating landscape lies under the tree canopy. The scrub on the woodland floor is a mix of flowering plants, young trees and herbaceous shrubs, which are perfectly adapted to the dappled light and provide an important food source for pollinators during spring.

Ancient organisms called lichens cloak the trees, stones and fallen wood. Lichens can take several hundred years to grow and display an incredible range of colours, textures and shapes. Fungi break down the dead wood, returning valuable nutrients to the rich soil.

Man-made dry stone walls and wood banks give us a glimpse of how our ancestors used ancient woodland. Coppice stools are tree stumps that have formed where multiple stems are repeatedly cut and have regrown from a tree. They give us a living photograph of age-old practices.

These treasures are a tangible link to a long lasting and invaluable relationship between man and woods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Identify Ancient Woodland - Woodland Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Think your wood could be ancient? Check our tips on what to look for on site and looking up historical records.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the Natural England and Forestry Commission 'standing advice' for ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees. It is a material planning consideration for local planning authorities ( LPAs).

You should take this advice into account when making planning decisions that affect ancient woodland, ancient trees or veteran trees.

Natural England and the Forestry Commission will only provide specific advice on planning applications as set out in the 'when to contact' sections, or in exceptional circumstances.

This guidance may be useful for decision makers who are responsible for major infrastructure projects, such as road and rail schemes.

Ancient woodland

Ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to establish and is defined as an irreplaceable habitat. It is a valuable natural asset important for:

wildlife (which include rare and threatened species) - there is also standing advice for protected species

soils

carbon capture and storage

contributing to the seed bank and genetic diversity

recreation, health and wellbeing

cultural, historical and landscape value

It's any area that's been wooded continuously since at least 1600 AD. It includes:

ancient semi-natural woodland mainly made up of trees and shrubs native to the site, usually arising from natural regeneration

plantations on ancient woodland sites - replanted with conifer or broadleaved trees that retain ancient woodland features, such as undisturbed soil, ground flora and fungi

They have equal protection in the National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF).

Other distinct forms of ancient woodland are:

wood pastures identified as ancient

historic parkland, which is protected as a heritage asset in the NPPF

Many of these do not appear on the ancient woodland inventory ( AWI) because their low tree density does not register as woodland on historic maps.

You should consider wood pastures identified as ancient in the same way as other ancient woodland when making planning decisions.

'Wooded continuously' does not mean there's been continuous tree cover across the whole site. Not all trees in the woodland have to be old. Open ground, both temporary and permanent, is an important component of ancient woodlands.

Ancient and veteran trees

Ancient and veteran trees can be individual trees or groups of trees within wood pastures, historic parkland, hedgerows, orchards, parks or other areas. They are often found outside ancient woodlands. They are also irreplaceable habitats.

Ancient trees

An ancient tree is exceptionally valuable. Attributes can include its:

great age

size

condition

biodiversity value as a result of significant wood decay and the habitat created from the ageing process

cultural and heritage value

Very few trees of any species become ancient.

Veteran trees

A veteran tree may not be very old, but it has significant decay features, such as branch death and hollowing. These features contribute to its exceptional biodiversity, cultural and heritage value.

All ancient trees are veteran trees, but not all veteran trees are ancient. The age at which a tree becomes ancient or veteran will vary by species because each species ages at a different rate.

Making decisions

When making planning decisions, you should consider:

conserving and enhancing biodiversity

avoiding and reducing the level of impact of the proposed development on ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees

You should refuse planning permission if development will result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees unless both of the following applies:

there are wholly exceptional reasons

there's a suitable compensation strategy in place (this must not be a part of considerations of wholly exceptional reasons) - see paragraphs 33 and 34 of the planning practice guidance on compensation guidance

You should make decisions in line with paragraph 180 (c) of the NPPF.

Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees are irreplaceable. Therefore, you should not consider proposed compensation measures as part of your assessment of the merits of the development proposal.

Assess the effects of development

When making decisions on planning applications, you should assess the direct and indirect effects of development on:

ancient woodland

ancient trees and veteran trees

You should consider both the construction and operational effects of the proposed development.

Consult inventories

You can use inventories to help you decide whether a development proposal will affect ancient woodland (including wood pastures identified as ancient) or ancient and veteran trees:

Ancient woodlands smaller than 2 hectares may not appear on these inventories. Local record centres may hold data on smaller ancient woodlands.

You should use this guidance for all ancient woodlands and ancient and veteran trees whether they're on the inventories or not. New data can be added to the AWI and ATI at any time. A review of the AWI is ongoing.

You should contact Natural England if a site has evidence of ancient woodland on it and is not on the inventory.

Direct and indirect effects of development

Development, including construction and operational activities can affect ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, and the wildlife they support on the site or nearby. Use this assessment guide (MS Word Document, 82.2 KB) to:

help you make planning decisions in line with the NPPF

keep a record of your assessment

You'll need to download the assessment guide and save it to your desktop to fill it in.

Direct effects of development can cause the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland or ancient and veteran trees by:

damaging or destroying all or part of them (including their soils, ground flora or fungi)

damaging roots and understorey (all the vegetation under the taller trees)

damaging or compacting soil

damaging functional habitat connections, such as open habitats between the trees in wood pasture and parkland

increasing levels of air and light pollution, noise and vibration

changing the water table or drainage

damaging archaeological features or heritage assets

changing the woodland ecosystem by removing the woodland edge or thinning trees - causing greater wind damage and soil loss

Indirect effects of development can also cause the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees by:

breaking up or destroying working connections between woodlands, or ancient trees or veteran trees - affecting protected species, such as bats or wood-decay insects

reducing the amount of semi-natural habitats next to ancient woodland that provide important dispersal and feeding habitat for woodland species

reducing the resilience of the woodland or trees and making them more vulnerable to change

increasing the amount of dust, light, water, air and soil pollution

increasing disturbance to wildlife, such as noise from additional people and traffic

increasing damage to habitat, for example trampling of plants and erosion of soil by people accessing the woodland or tree root protection areas

increasing damaging activities like fly-tipping and the impact of domestic pets

increasing the risk of damage to people and property by falling branches or trees requiring tree management that could cause habitat deterioration

changing the landscape character of the area

Providing evidence

You should work with the developer to make sure there's enough suitable evidence to make a decision. This may include fieldwork and historic maps.

You should ask developers for a tree survey and an ecological survey, where appropriate. The tree survey should follow guidance in British Standard BS 5837 'Trees in relation to demolition, design and development'. Ecological surveys should follow best practice guidance. You can get further information from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management resource hub and from Natural England's protected species standing advice.

You must make sure the developer includes mitigation measures in their development proposal to avoid and reduce harm caused by development on ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees. They may also need to include a suitable compensation strategy.

Avoid impacts, reduce (mitigate) impacts, and compensate as a last resort

You and the developer should identify ways to avoid negative effects on ancient woodland or ancient and veteran trees. For example, selecting an alternative site for development or redesigning the scheme.

You should decide on the weight given to ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees in planning decisions on a case-by-case basis. You should do this by taking account of the NPPF and relevant development plan policies.

If you decide to grant planning permission that results in unavoidable loss or deterioration where wholly exceptional reasons are demonstrated, you should use planning conditions or obligations to make sure the developer:

avoids damage

mitigates against damage

compensates for loss or damage (use as a last resort)

This is known as the mitigation hierarchy. You should apply the mitigation hierarchy in line with NPPF paragraph 180a to avoid significant harm to biodiversity.

See the government policy for woodland and trees describing the opportunities for improving ancient and native woodlands.

Existing condition of ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees

Where a proposal involves the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland or ancient or veteran trees you should not take account of the existing condition of the ancient woodland or ancient or veteran tree when you assess the merits of the development proposal. Its existing condition is not a reason to give permission for development. A woodland or tree in poor condition can be improved with good management.

Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures will depend on the type of development. They could include:

putting up screening barriers to protect ancient woodland or ancient and veteran trees from dust and pollution

measures to reduce noise or light

designing open space to protect ancient or veteran trees

rerouting footpaths and managing vegetation to deflect trampling pressure away from sensitive locations

creating buffer zones

Use of buffer zones

Buffer zones can protect ancient woodland and individual ancient and veteran trees and provide valuable habitat for woodland wildlife, such as feeding bats and birds. The size and type of buffer zone should vary depending on the:

scale and type of development and its effect on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees

character of the surrounding area

For example, larger buffer zones are more likely to be needed if the surrounding area is:

less densely wooded

close to residential areas

steeply sloped

Buffer zone recommendations

For ancient woodlands, the proposal should have a buffer zone of at least 15 metres from the boundary of the woodland to avoid root damage (known as the root protection area). Where assessment shows other impacts are likely to extend beyond this distance, the proposal is likely to need a larger buffer zone. For example, the effect of air pollution from development that results in a significant increase in traffic.

For ancient or veteran trees (including those on the woodland boundary), the buffer zone should be at least 15 times larger than the diameter of the tree. The buffer zone should be 5 metres from the edge of the tree's canopy if that area is larger than 15 times the tree's diameter. This will create a minimum root protection area.

Where assessment shows other impacts are likely to extend beyond this distance, the proposal is likely to need a larger buffer zone.

Where possible, a buffer zone should:

contribute to wider ecological networks

be part of the green infrastructure of the area

A buffer zone should consist of semi-natural habitats such as:

woodland

a mix of scrub, grassland, heathland and wetland

The proposal should include creating or establishing habitat with local and appropriate native species in the buffer zone.

You should consider if access is appropriate. You can allow access to buffer zones if the habitat is not harmed by trampling.

You should not approve development proposals, including gardens, within a buffer zone.

You should only approve sustainable drainage schemes if:

they do not affect root protection areas

any change to the water table does not negatively affect ancient woodland or ancient and veteran trees

Compensation measures

Compensation measures are always a last resort. These measures can only partially compensate for loss or damage.

Compensation measures should be appropriate for the site and for the scale and nature of the impacts on it. A compensation strategy could include measures to:

create new native woodland or wood pasture and allow for natural regeneration

improve the condition of the woodland

remove invasive species

restore or manage other ancient woodland, including plantations on ancient woodland sites, wood pasture and parkland

connect woodland and ancient and veteran trees separated by development with green bridges, tunnels or hedgerows

produce long-term management plans for new woodland and ancient woodland - including deer management

manage ancient and veteran trees to improve their condition

plant or protect individual trees that could become veteran and ancient trees in future

The compensation strategy should include monitoring the ecology of the site over an agreed period.

Create new native woodland

Planting new trees and creating new native woodland is not a direct replacement for lost or damaged trees or woodland.

You can accept large-scale woodland creation as a compensation measure alongside other measures. This could be on soil that has been moved from the destroyed area of ancient woodland (soil translocation) which could include other ancient woodland ecosystem features, such as:

You cannot accept plans to move an ancient woodland ecosystem because:

it's not possible to replicate the same conditions at another site

it's no longer an ancient woodland

You should not accept plans to relocate individual trees as a compensation measure. It may not be possible to do and would also break connections with the woodland ecosystem.

See 'A habitats translocation policy for Britain' published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003) for more about moving habitats.

New woodland creation can be effective where it links to and extends existing woodland, as long as it does not affect:

other semi-natural habitats

heritage features

protected species

Restore or improve ancient woodland

Proposals can partially compensate for loss or damage of ancient woodland with measures to:

improve and restore plantations on ancient woodland sites

improve the management of nearby ancient woodland sites and connecting them better to semi-natural habitat

improve the condition of important features of ancient woodland

improve access for management purposes

Proposals can partially compensate for loss or damage to wood pasture by restoring semi-natural open habitat, managed by grazing, with open grown trees.

You may need to ask for a management plan. You can monitor the ecology of the site, over an agreed period, to help you advise on management measures.

Proposals to create new woodland, or to restore or improve ancient woodland should follow the UK Forestry Standard.

Compensate for the loss or deterioration of ancient and veteran trees

Proposals can partially compensate for the loss or deterioration of ancient and veteran trees by planting:

young trees of the same species with space around each one to develop an open crown

new trees near to the trees they're replacing

Proposals should include compensation measures to manage nearby ancient and veteran trees (including dead and dying trees) to help prolong their life. You should tell developers to get advice from a registered tree consultant (arboriculturist) before they carry out work on veteran trees by contacting the:

They should leave the intact hulk of the ancient or veteran tree where it is (preferably standing) to benefit invertebrates and fungi. If that's not possible, move it near other ancient and veteran trees or parkland in the area.

Ancient woodland, ancient and veteran tree management

For more information on management practices, read:

Natural England is a statutory consultee for proposals that affect any sites of special scientific interest. For all other proposals that affect ancient woodland or ancient and veteran trees, you should use the guidance on this page. Natural England will only provide advice if consulted on other cases in exceptional circumstances.

Email: consultations@naturalengland.org.uk

Telephone: 0300 060 3900

The Forestry Commission is a non-statutory consultee for development proposals that include or are likely to affect ancient woodland. You should use the guidance on this page to assess proposals.

Contact your Forestry Commission area office for issues not covered by this standing advice.

You should consult Forestry England for planning proposals close to, or affecting a public forest in England.

Telephone: 0300 067 4000

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: advice for making planning decisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How to assess a planning application when there are ancient woodland, ancient trees or veteran trees on or near a proposed development site.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: Katherine Jaiteh / WTML

What is ancient woodland?

Ancient woods are areas of woodland that have persisted since 1600 in England and Wales, and 1750 in Scotland. This is when maps started to be reasonably accurate so we can tell that these areas have had tree cover for hundreds of years. They are relatively undisturbed by human development. As a result, they are unique and complex communities of plants, fungi, insects and other microorganisms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ancient Woodland - British Habitats - Woodland Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Credit: Katherine Jaiteh / WTML What is ancient woodland? Ancient woods are areas of woodland that have persisted since 1600 in England and Wales, and 1750 in Scotland. This is when maps started to be reasonably accurate so we can tell that these areas have had tree cover for hundreds of years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A general description of British woodlands, including their structure, types and biodiversity, together with an introduction to management techniques for small native woodlands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information on the ecological benefits of grasslands in the urban and peri-urban greenspace environment, including benefits and practical considerations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Urgent need for new approach to combat global grassland degradation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Urgent need for new approach to combat global grassland degradation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global grasslands are a source of biodiversity and provide a host of benefits to humans, including food production, water supply, and carbon storage. But their future looks bleak without action to halt their degradation and promote their restoration, according to the authors of a new paper published in the journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environm...

# data[].attributes.body
This is useful if you are interested in learning more about the identification of plants beyond your project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HOW IT WORKS: My sheet will ask you a short series of easy to answer, jargon-free questions about your mystery plant, and once you have answered them you'll be presented with a list of possible families that the plant might belong to, in descending order of likelihood. For each family, the relevant pages are listed for each of the three books named above. Simply check each family in turn, going through every numbered page, and look for a picture that matches. It really is that simple! If you think you have a match but aren't sure, mark the page and go back to it if you find nothing better. Alternately, type the scientific name into an image search engine and compare with the photos that come up!

I'll go through how it works in detail below, but once you've got the gist you'll find that it is fast and effective to use, and will also train you to recognise families. Students with no prior experience were able to identify over a dozen plants from scratch using this method in an hour and a half.

We begin with three quick questions, to eliminate distinctive groups, as shown on the flowchart above.

First, if your plant is fully aquatic (i.e. floating in water or growing from the bottom of a permanent water body), go to the box in the middle bottom of page 2. There are four columns for water plants - one for those with large showy flowers (there aren't that many!) and three for those with barely visible greenish flowers, and for these you choose a column based on leaf arrangement.

Second, if your plant is woody , i.e. a tree or shrub, it is in the top middle box on the second page. Choose a column based on flower colour, flower shape, and if green/brown, whether the flowers look like flowers, form catkins, or have another shape entirely.

Finally, if you're lucky enough to find one of the special species with no green parts at all, which means it has no chlorophyll , then check the short list of families in the extreme bottom right of page 1.

For most 'flowers' you encounter, the answer to these first three questions will be 'no'. The next operation is a tiny bit more difficult, but essential: you must determine the arrangement of the flowers (collectively, the term for a group of flowers is an 'inflorescence'). Choose from one of six categories:

Based on which of these your plant fits, choose a row from 1-6 in the family-finder sheet. A couple of things to be aware of:

Having chosen a row in the grid, you next answer a series of simple questions about the individual flowers, to pick a page, then a column:

First, are the ? If so, go to the first two columns on page two. Green or brown flowers are often very small (they tend to be pollinated by wind, not insects) and hard to examine, therefore choose the left or right column depending on whether the leaves are grasslike (i.e. long, thin and parallel sided, as seen in daffodils, crocus, bluebell etc), or (i..e a different shape without parallel sides, often with branching veins, like dock, nettle, oak, etc).

If it is not green or brown, you will find it on page 1. The next question to ask is,
bilaterally symmetric? That means an individual flower that, if you rotate it, looks different - or technically speaking, there is one line of reflectional symmetry but no axis or rotational symmetry. The human face is bilaterally symmetric; flower examples include pansy, orchids, and all British members of the pea family. All bilaterally symmetric flowers go in the column on the right-hand side of page 1.

If not bilaterally symmetric, flower will be radially symmetric , i.e. if the flower is rotated it looks the same, as in buttercup, wild rose, crocus etc. Note that symmetry must always be judged looking at the flower end-on, not from the side (e.g. a tulip is radially symmetric, but appears bilateral from the side, as do all radially symmetric flowers). Because radially symmetric flowers are much more common in Britain, we need to ask more questions:

If it is radially symmetric, how many petals does it have ? The categories here are 3 or 6, 4, 5, or 7+. Three and six are grouped together because often flowers with three true petals have another three that look like petals. Also note that a few plants have petals that are forked, giving the impression there are twice as many as there really are, but I have controlled for this by listing the relevant families in brackets in the 7+ petals category, as well as the one where they properly belong.

Now, you should have chosen a row, and a column. You are now faced with a list of possible families, e.g. for 4 petals, in leaf axils, the list is Onagraceae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, Caryophyllaceae, (Scrophulariaceae). If you have answered your questions correctly, your plant is in one of these families. Check them in the order they are listed, because the top one (in this case Onagraceae) is the most likely. Remember that to save you time, numbers give plates of black Keble Martin's Concise British Flora, whereas and numbers are pages in The Wild Flower Key , and Collins' Flower Guide , respectively. Keep going till you find a match! Remember you can check possible matches by typing the scientific name into a search engine like Google Image, and comparing photos.

Good luck! Once you've used it a few times, you'll be able to dispense with these instructions and just use the 2 sheets alone. And soon, you'll start recognising families without assistance!

A few last points. Some families have had their names changed, and/or been broken up or merged with others. A list of these is on the second sheet, and an asterisk by a family name indicates that it might be known by another name in your book. I've often used older names here because the method was originally designed to work with Keble Martin. Where family names are given in brackets, it means that family technically doesn't belong in that category (e.g. it really has 4 petals but looks like it has 8), but I've put it there because it looks like it does.

out, don't worry about this - it's OK to say "it's a forgetmenot" and leave it at that. Separating similar species.

However, when you're ready, the best and correct way to separate similar species is using keys. Both the Collins Flower Guide and Rose's Wild Flower Key contain such keys. These ask a series of questions with two possible answers, until you get to a single species and hence a precise ID. Using these requires patience, and learning some terminology, but the books will help you with that.
In some groups, like speedwells and forgetmenots, you will find that there are many species that look very similar, and it is difficult to get an exact identification by looking at pictures alone. When you're starting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The British flora comprises over 1100 native species, plus 600 common introduced species (and another 3000 rare introductions, that beginners don't need to worry about). It is hence a rather daunting...

# data[].attributes.body
Species lists with positive and negative indicator species for every habitat

# data[].attributes.headline
National plant monitoring scheme - ID guide

# data[].attributes.subject
National plant monitoring scheme - ID guide

# data[].attributes.body
Really helpful for all habitats. This is pre-loaded on to our tablets

# data[].attributes.headline
Species rich Grassland - RSPB presentation

# data[].attributes.subject
Species rich Grassland - RSPB presentation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frame quadrats and point quadrats, frequency and composition | Field Studies Council

# data[].attributes.headline
Magnificent meadows - analysing meadows using indicator species

# data[].attributes.subject
Magnificent meadows - analysing meadows using indicator species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Flower-rich grasslands, once a part of every farm, are part of our culture. Most have developed alongside humans because of livestock grazing and cutting for hay. Many have archaeological and historical features.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cumbria Wildlife Trust is the only voluntary organisation devoted solely to the conservation of the wildlife and wild places of Cumbria. The Trust stands up for wildlife, creates wildlife havens, and seeks to raise environmental awareness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's time to imagine a more resilient future for the Lake District and all its communities, a future in which wild nature and thriving biodiversity is central.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Woodland creation and tree establishment guidelines for the Lake District National Park

Could trees and woodlands be an opportunity for you? On this page we explain the opportunities available to you for woodland creation and how to take steps to implement. From practical information, to advice on funding and who to contact next.

Why trees and woodlands?

Atlantic rainforests, ancient trees and traditional wood pastures help make the Lake District one of the most distinctive landscapes in the world.

But trees and woodlands provide so much more than character and visual appeal. For those working the land, trees and woodlands offer a host of benefits including shade and shelter for livestock, improved soils, crop yields and farm diversification. In the right location, trees and woodlands can increase farm productivity and income through agroforestry and timber for sale or use on farms.

And, of course, woodland ecosystems reduce our climate impact by locking up carbon, providing sustainable building and craft products and wood fuel for energy and heating.

Further afield, local communities benefit from reduced flooding risk, opportunities for employment and places to enjoy the great outdoors for their health and wellbeing. Our Atlantic rainforests, dripping with lush mosses, lichens and ferns, support an enormous wealth of wildlife.

Where are good places for new trees and woodlands?

It's important to establish the right types of new trees and woodlands in the right places, and it is worth taking the time to plan this early on.

The Lake District National Park Partnership's ambition is to increase woodland cover from 13% to at least 17% to contribute to the Government's legally binding target for tree and woodland cover in England of 16.5% by 2050. This means creating an average of over 200ha of new wood habitats per year - from woodland and forests to wood pasture, scrub to hedgerows and individual trees.

By expanding and linking up existing woody habitats, wildlife can move to colorise new areas and adapt to a changing climate. Diverse mixtures of habitat types (for example mixtures of trees, scrub, grassland and heath) are also great because they provide shelter and a wide range of food all in the same place. While signs such as bracken can indicate areas where trees will grow well, we also need to understand where trees are not appropriate, for example, on deep peat or priority habitats such as species rich grasslands.

You also need to be mindful of the impact of deer and livestock on establishing trees and consider management (such as fencing) for the duration of your project.

Woodland and tree cover types

Only 13% of the Lake District is woodland. We want to boost this figure by expanding, linking and enhancing our most important habitats, which include Atlantic Rainforest and wood pastures with some of the most valuable ancient trees in Europe. They are a part of our heritage and culture, absorb carbon, clean our water and reduce flooding.

The Cumbria Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) outlines some of the types of woody habitats that might be appropriate for the Lake District. See online resources for further information.

Funding and advice

There is a significant amount of support available to landowners in the form of funding, grant aid and advice. Advisors can provide you with the expertise and guidance to assess your project against objectives at each stage of the design process. They can also help you identify the right funding for your project and how to apply, including regulatory approval. Some of the tree and woodland establishment funding schemes are listed below.

Woodland Creation Planning Grant (WCPG) - Forestry Commission

5ha but can be smaller blocks

Funds the production of a UKFS compliant plan, including contribution to paying for surveys.

The England Woodland Creation Offer (EWCO) - Forestry Commission

Minimum 1ha

Funds planting and natural colonisation (plus 100% of required capital items and maintenance payments for 10 years). Additional contributions to deliver public benefits such as access, water quality and nature recovery.

Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier - Defra/Natural England

N/A

Annual area and capital payments for tree planting, fencing and guards to create scrub, wood pasture, orchards and hedgerows.

Landscape Recovery Scheme - Defra/Natural England

500ha but not necessarily all woodland

Bespoke projects for significant nature restoration at the landscape scale. Includes funding for a project development phase.

MOREwoods - Woodland Trust

All types, minimum 500 trees/0.5ha

Subsidised supply of trees and guards for woodland of 0.5ha+.

Eligible woodland creation schemes can be registered under the Woodland Carbon Code to provide access to fully regulated carbon markets to sell sequestered carbon, including to the UK government via the Woodland Carbon Guarantee Scheme.

7 key factors for woodland creation in the Lake District

People

The Lake District is a world class visitor destination where access and commons rights are important to the people and heritage. Woodland Creation design and establishment must safeguard existing access rights and, where possible, enhance high quality and unique experiences for visitors and residents.

Historic Environment

The distinctive environment of the Lake District includes its archaeology, historic landscapes, designed landscapes, industrial sites, and settlement and building character. Tree planting and woodland design should seek to protect and enhance these landscapes and features and avoid damaging them.

Climate change

Establishing new trees and woodlands has a significant role to play in reducing the impact of climate change on the sensitive habitats and landscapes of the Lake District. Choose species and design woodlands that will thrive in a changing climate and help wildlife adapt.

Biodiversity

Design projects to expand valuable habitat, enhance the value of existing ones and help species to move across the landscape. For existing habitats, think carefully about whether or not native trees and scrub will add value. Respect legal protections for wildlife (including Sites of Special Scientific Interest and protected species legislation).

Water

All woodland creation proposals should aim to contribute to improving the water and wildlife condition of lakes and wetlands and slow down flood waters. Position woodlands to protect habitats by capturing nutrient and sediment pollution and to provide shade for watercourses.

Landscape

The Lake District's landscape is spectacular and subtle. Every valley is distinctive. The transition between trees and other vegetation is key and should be carefully considered in woodland design. World Heritage Site (WHS) status requires additional care and woodland design should protect and enhance the WHS and avoid
harm to its features.

Soil

Lake District soils are often vulnerable to erosion. Well designed and managed woodland can help protect soil and the carbon it contains. Minimise soil disturbance and compaction during establishment or encourage natural colonisation. Do not plant trees on deep peat or drain wetlands.

Things to consider before going ahead

As a National Park and World Heritage Site, it is vital all woodland creation and tree establishment respects the existing landscape of the Lake District. There is also wildlife legislation and other national standards and regulations which need to be adhered to, including the United Kingdom Forestry Standard (UKFS) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. You can get a taste of the process in the section overleaf and find out more by visiting our online resources.

Advisors are available from several organisations to help guide you through these requirements and make sure your project complies with any regulations as well as offering advice and support on surveys, engaging contractors and sourcing plants from nurseries. They can also advise on how to look after your trees and woodlands in the long-term, which is essential for them to reach their full potential.

Remember, the important things is to get advice early on in your project development. We're all working towards the same thing - a beautiful, healthy Lake District, with the right trees in the right places, doing the right thing for the people and wildlife who live there.

Planning to planting

Successful tree establishment and woodland creation takes planning and preparation and as trees can live for hundreds of years, it is worth getting it right, especially in a sensitive landscape and environment such as the Lake District. If applying for a grant, this could take five months or more, so start early with planning and engaging organisations that are able to help.

Sources of further advice

There are additional resources and guidance available. These pages are regularly updated to include all of the latest information about grant aid, policy and regulations. If you are a tenant, you should speak to your landlord at an early stage. Not all tenancies preclude woodland creation or tree establishment but may need some renegotiation or clarification before doing the work.

Forestry Commission

Woodland Trust

Lake District National Park Authority

email: hq@lakedistrict.gov.uk

Cumbria Woodlands

Natural England

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Could trees and woodlands be an opportunity for you? On this page we explain the opportunities available to you for woodland creation and how to take steps to implement. From practical information, to advice on funding and who to contact next.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lake district national park - Management goals for the environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Lake district national park - Management goals for the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Outcome 3: Securing the future of farming and forestry, nature recovery and climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Lake District National Park faces the biggest change in half a century with the implementation of the Agriculture Act 2020 and the delivery of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan.

# data[].attributes.body
Designed to support IB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IB Workshop - Conclusions and evaluation

# data[].attributes.headline
DIAL Conclusions + evaluation worksheet 

# data[].attributes.subject
DIAL Conclusions + evaluation worksheet 

# data[].attributes.body
You can request a laminated version of this to use.

# data[].attributes.headline
UK wide citizen science project - Water Blitz report

# data[].attributes.subject
UK wide citizen science project - Water Blitz report

# data[].attributes.body
Sam (a tutor here) submitted results to this project!

# data[].attributes.headline
Life in freshwater - invertebrates guide

# data[].attributes.subject
Life in freshwater - invertebrates guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
LIFE IN FRESHWATER - Macro photography of aquatic insects and other freshwater invertebrates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Important Areas for Ponds (IAP) concept was proposed and developed by Freshwater Habitats Trust to raise awareness of geographic regions that support ponds of national or international biodiversity importance. The project was successfully piloted in Wales (Nicolet et al. 2007) prior to ponds being added to the UK list of BAP Priority Habitats in 2007, and IAPs have now been completed for South-east England and Northern Ireland.

Conceptually, IAPs are similar to initiatives developed by other organisations:

Birdlife International's Important Bird Areas (IBAs).

Plantlife International's Important Plant Areas (IPAs) and Important Stonewort Areas (ISAs).

The aim of IAPs is to identify networks of the most important ponds and their biodiversity. These areas can then be used to help focus strategies for pond monitoring, protection and appropriate management and creation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research library - Freshwater Habitats Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download scientific research papers and reports from Freshwater Habitats Trust. Learn more about our freshwater research and monitoring.

# data[].attributes.headline
5. Conclusions, Evaluations and Report writing 

# data[].attributes.subject
5. Conclusions, Evaluations and Report writing 

# data[].attributes.body
Simply scroll along for help with each step of an investigation.

# data[].attributes.body
Find out more information about the habitats at our investigation sites - Scroll Along to see them all

# data[].attributes.headline
Explore habitats at Low Bridge End farm 

# data[].attributes.subject
Explore habitats at Low Bridge End farm 

# data[].attributes.body
You could be doing your investigation here or at Low bridge end farm, check with your course organizer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AQA A-Level Biology Required Practical 12

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Low Bridge End farm hosts a wide variety of habitats to complete various required practicals and independant investigations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Explore habitats at the Blencathra centre  

# data[].attributes.subject
Explore habitats at the Blencathra centre  

# data[].attributes.body
You could be doing your investigation here or at Low bridge end farm, check with your course organizer.

# data[].attributes.body
How is what you are studying related to current issues in ecology? Scroll down for habitat specific information.

# data[].attributes.body
You should aim to gather a wide range of information about the area you are interested in. Scroll down for deeper research and more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Generic Biology investigation planning sheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking for help planning and carrying out fieldwork for your AS, A Level or IB? Check out our resources section here,

# data[].attributes.headline
Environment agency - River basin management plans

# data[].attributes.subject
Environment agency - River basin management plans

# data[].attributes.headline
State of nature England report summary 2023

# data[].attributes.subject
State of nature England report summary 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Established in 1964, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species has evolved to become the world’s most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of animal, fungi and plant species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WHAT IS MAGIC?

The MAGIC website provides authoritative geographic information about the natural environment from across government. The information covers rural, urban, coastal and marine environments across Great Britain. It is presented in an interactive map which can be explored using various mapping tools that are included. Natural England manages the service under the direction of a Steering Group who represent the MAGIC partnership organisations.

LATEST NEWS

Open Mosaic Habitat (Draft) data has been added to MAGIC this month. The dataset consists of Verified sites of Open Mosaic Habitat. Open mosaic habitats can be extremely diverse, including such wide ranging sites as railway sidings, quarries, former industrial works, slag heap, bings and brick pits. Brownfields with open mosaic habitats show evidence of previous disturbance, either through soil being removed or severely modified by previous use, or the addition of materials such as industrial spoil, with spatial variation developing across the site. The resultant variation allows for a mosaic of different habitats to be supported in close proximity. This habitat diversity can support rich assemblages of invertebrates, which has led to 'open mosaic habitats on previously developed land' being added to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) as a Priority habitat listed on Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The MAGIC website provides authoritative geographic information about the natural environment from across government. The information covers rural, urban, coastal and marine environments across Great Britain. It is presented in an interactive map which can be explored using various mapping tools that are included.

# data[].attributes.headline
Environment Agency -St Johns beck report

# data[].attributes.subject
Environment Agency -St Johns beck report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Attributes

Water Body ID GB112075070430

Hydromorphological designation heavily modified

Surveillance Water Body No

Catchment area 52.148 km2

Natural England Revised WB Protected Area targets http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4808084962672640

Catchment area 5214.83 ha

Investigations into classification status

No data to show

Reasons for not achieving good status by business sector

The issues preventing waters reaching good status and the sectors identified as contributing to them. The numbers in the table are individual counts of the reasons for not achieving good status with a confidence status of 'confirmed' and 'probable', where the latest classification is less than good status. There may be more than one reason in a single water body. Note, table does not include reasons for deterioration.

Significant water management issue

Physical modifications

Pollution from waste water

Pollution from towns, cities and transport

Changes to the natural flow and level of water

Invasive non-native species

Pollution from rural areas

Pollution from abandoned mines

Reasons for not achieving good (RNAG) and reasons for deterioration (RFD)

All reasons (RFDs and RNAGs) attributed to the classification elements in this water body.

Monitoring sites which have been used to classify this water body

Shows which sites were used for classification for which years within each cycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
St John’s Beck | Catchment Data Explorer | Catchment Data Explorer

# data[].attributes.body
Primarily for Low bridge end farm investigations

# data[].attributes.body
Scroll down to look at more information about the fells and open grassland

# data[].attributes.body
Find an area you are interested in and start to plan a manageable investigation