The feasibility of biodiversity

enhancements in woodland ground

flora around Whatley Quarry

Final report submission to the Quarry Life Award Project

Laura Cottam, Ewan Gibson, Jennifer Harnett, Richard Spiers, Lisa Thomas,

David Watson*, Darrel Watts, Matthew Weiss

Ecology research Group, Bath Spa University, UK

30th

September 2014

* Lead researcher. Cover image: ground flora at Asham Wood SSSI. D.Watson, 2014.

1 | P a g e

Abstract

Woodlands are complex, stratified communities; they are more than just the trees. This project examined

the feasibility of enhancing woodland ground flora in woodland plantings at Whatley Quarry in order to

improve their biodiversity value. To do this the site conditions at Whatley were determined, conditions

required for specialist woodland ground flora researched, and means of propagation and colonisation

reviewed.

Species composition and environmental conditions were recorded at the Whatley Woodland sites and also

as a contrast in coppice coups at Asham Wood SSSI, a near-by ancient semi-natural woodland. Findings from

these two sites were compared to determine the extent to which species (canopy, understorey and ground

flora) and environmental conditions corresponded, with a view to determining the likelihood of ground flora

introductions at Whatley succeeding.

Vegetation was surveyed to National Vegetation Classification System standard. A range of different-aged

coppice and planting areas were surveyed at Asham and Whatley respectively. Twenty-four sites were

surveyed at each location. Light transmission through the canopy was recorded at for each sample and soil

samples were taken and analysed for organic matter content, field capacity, pH and electrical conductivity as

well as the content of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus and calcium. The data was analysed using MAVIS, R

and Microsoft Excel. Ellenberg’s indicator values were also assigned to species to determine which species

would be best suited to the Whatley Woodland environment.

Ground flora at Asham Wood found to be was typical of ancient semi-natural woodland with Dog’s mercury

Mercurialis perennis, Bluebells Hyacinthoides non-scriptus, Ramsons Allium ursinum, and yellow archangel

Lamiastrum galeobdolon being typical members of the ground flora. In addition Herb Paris and Solomon’s

seal were often recorded. In contrast the Whatley Woodland ground flora typically comprised Rough-stalked

medow-grass Poa trivialis, Stinging nettles Urtica dioica, Blackberry Rubus fruticosus, and False oat-grass

Arrhenatherum elatius. Colonisation of Whatley Woodlands by woodland ground flora specialists was found

to be poor to date. The key environmental factor likely to aid the development of woodland ground flora at

Whatley was lower light availability in maturing stands. However the factor that was most likely to inhibit

such development was the significantly higher soil phosphate levels at Whatley, which would favour more

vigorous competitors.

On the basis of this research, six species were selected as candidates for introduction: Ramsons ,Bluebells

and Dog’s mercury as typical woodland specialists recorded at Asham Wood; Wild strawberry Fragaria vesca

and Dog violet Viola riviniana as larval food plants of notable butterfly species at Asham; and, Herb Paris

Paris quadrifolia and Yellow Archangel as ancient woodland indicators. It is hoped to set up trials in Autumn

2014 and the findings applied to biodiversity enhancement work in other quarries.

2 | P a g e

IntroductionSemi-natural ancient woodlands are complex and highly stratified communities, with many species of

conservation value represented in the ground flora rather than in the tree canopy (Rotherham et al., 2008).

These woodlands are the product of human intervention and natural processes such as colonisation and

extinction over centuries (Peterken and Game, 1984; Rackham, 1990).

Typical woodland ground flora are typically vernal species and include Ramsons Allium ursinum, Dog’s

mercury Mercurialis perennis, Dog violet Viola riviniana, Wood anemone Anemone nemorosa and Yellow

archangel Galeobdolon luteum. Species such as Dog’s mercury are often adapted to dense shade conditions

(Hutchings and Barkham, 1976; Grime et al. 1990), ground flora vary in abundance with coppice cycles (Ash

and Barkham, 1976) and are often restricted to ancient woodland sites.

In 1995, Parker argued that few woodland habitat creation schemes were no more than tree-planting

schemes, with little thought given to ground flora. There is little in the literature to suggest that this situation

has improved in intervening period. Natural colonisation may be another means by which woodland

communities may develop. This may be possible for woodland species such as Wood avens Geum urbanum

and Ivy Hedera helix that are of intermediate dispersal ability and where habitat connectivity is good

(Humphrey et al., 2013).

However the benefits for colonisation of increased network connectivity for specialist ancient woodland

ground flora species are equivocal (Humphrey et al. 2013). Where an ancient woodland seed source is locally

available or adjacent, woodland community development can be relatively rapid with ancient woodland

vascular plants colonising in 50-80, to 100 years (Bossuyt and Hermy, 2000), or can take longer; over 125

years (Harmer et al.,2001). In general ancient woodland vascular ground flora are slow colonisers, and are

unlikely to establish in new areas unless other colonies exist nearby (White et al., 2003),

Where there is a desire to enhance woodland biodiversity and natural colonisation of new woodlands is

unlikely, then introduction may be required (White et al., 2003; Rotherham et al., 2008) as a secondary

treatment for woodland planting schemes. This is the stage Whatley Woodlands have probably reached.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of this project was examine the feasibility of introducing woodland ground flora to enhance

woodland biodiversity at Whatley Quarry using Asham Wood as a potential donor site. Implicit was the need

to characterise ground flora composition at both sites. The project objectives were to:

• Determine the environmental conditions at Asham Wood and in stands of tree planting around the

periphery of Whatley Quarry to determine the degree of compatibility

• Research the environmental requirements of selected common and ecologically significant ground

flora species at Asham Wood

• Research collection, propagation and introduction techniques for ground flora species that would

minimise disturbance to Asham Wood

• Devise a prescription for the introduction of selected ground flora to woodland stands at Whatley, in

order to increase the number of plant species in the extraction site, and

• Provide recommendations for both a restoration management plan for the quarry and on the

sourcing of donor material within the (forthcoming) management plan for Asham Wood.

3 | P a g e

Background Information

Whatley Quarry ((51°13'49.4"N, 2°23'49.7"W [Google, 2014a]) (Fig 1) is a carboniferous limestone quarry of

approximately 120 hectares located in the Mendips (Hanson, 2013). It is operated by Hanson

Aggregates/Heidelberg Cement and is the second largest quarry in the Mendip area in terms of surface area,

but it is also the deepest (Thompson et al., 2010). It has been subject to a long-standing and progressive

restoration scheme (Hanson, 2013), incorporating tree planting on screening bunds around the quarry

margin. These planting compartments are at various stages of development: existing semi-natural woodland

incorporated into the scheme, natural regeneration on old overburden, discrete plantings from 1980 to 2014

(Annex 2), and further planned planting as part of the terminal restoration. In common with most other

restoration schemes to establish natural woodland, woodland creation to date has focused mainly on tree

planting (Ryan, 2013) with subsequent management of stands including cutting ground vegetation and

selective tree thinning.

Hanson Aggregates also owns Asham Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is the largest

(141ha) and most biodiverse ancient semi-natural woodland in the Mendips (Natural England, undated). This

potential donor site is located in the Mendips (51°12'48.0"N, 2°25'09.9"W [Google, 2014a]). Asham is

divided into a series of coppice coups, some of which have been cut once between 1990 and 2014 (Annex 3).

Other areas have not been cut since mass felling in World War II.

The juxtaposition of Asham Wood and Whatley Quarry (two to three miles apart) on similar geologies

provides a unique opportunity for research into woodland colonisation and enhancement, with Asham

Wood as a potential donor site. Research results could inform strategies for the enrichment of woodland

ground flora at Whatley and of other hard rock quarries in the region and beyond.

Methodology

Vegetation Survey

Stratified sampling was undertaken across a range of different-aged stands at both Asham Wood and

Whatley Woodlands to establish the nature of the plant communities present (Table 1). Vegetation surveys

were undertaken between 11th June 2014 and 2nd July 2014and were undertaken in accordance with the

standard methods described by the National Vegetation Classification System (Rodwell, 1991).

Figure 1. A satellite image of the two sampling locations with Asham Wood highlighted

with a blue circle and Whatley Quarry highlighted with a red square (Google Maps, 2014b).

4 | P a g e

Table 1. Sampling sites: Coppice coups at Asham Wood and Woodland Planting at Whatley

Asham Whatley

Coup No. Last Coppiced Stand Age, yrs Compart. No. Planted Stand Age, yrs

1 Pre- 1990 Est 50 18,20 Natural regen. Est 50

5, 8, 9 1990-92 21-23 13, 29 1980 33

7, 9 1994-6 17-19 7, 8 1985 28

2, 7 1998-2003 10-14 15 1989-90 21-23

11 2004-05 9 31a 2002 11

10 (west) 2012-13 1 33 2004 9

Note: planting at Whatley in 2014 was omitted from survey as it was dominated by rank grassland. The most recently

coppiced area at Asham (2013-14) was omitted due to on-going felling works.

At least one 50x50m canopy and understory composition quadrat was recorded for each selected age stand,

with 12 being recorded at Asham and 9 at Whatley. Within each of these large quadrats, a maximum of five

4x4m quadrats were used to record ground flora composition (species, litter and bare ground cover

expressed as a percentage). At Whatley, some compartments were not large enough to contain a 50x50m

quadrat, consequently the largest available area was surveyed and adjustments made during the analysis. In

total the ground flora in 24 4x4m quadrats were recorded at both Asham and Whatley.

Environmental parameters

Light availability under and beyond the canopy were recorded at the centre of each 4x4m quadrat using a lux

meter and transmission through the canopy determined (%). A top soil sample (to 0.15m depth) was

collected from the centre of each 4x4m quadrat.

Laboratory analysis of soil samples

Soil samples were air dried, disaggregated and sieved to a particle size of 2mm (MAFF, 1986) in preparation

for the analysis of: pH as this influences nutrient availability and species distributions and abundance;

electrical conductivity (Bruckner, 2013) to determine the level of ions/nutrients available in the soil solution;

nitrate nitrogen using a nitrate selective probe; extractable phosphate; extractable potassium (Morgan,

1941); extractable calcium (using hydrochloric acid); composition by sedimentation (Avery & Bascomb,

1982; Rowell, 1994) and colour (Munsell Color Company, 2000); field capacity (ability to retain water); and,

organic matter (important for soil structure, and nutrient and water retention) by loss on ignition (O’Hare,

1990; Rowell, 1994). The standard methods used were based on those described by MAFF (1986) and Eaton

et al. (1998).

The method for extractable phosphate analysis differed for soils from the two sites due to differences in pH

(MAFF, 1986): Morgan’s extraction (Morgan, 1941) was used for soils with a pH below 7.4 from Asham;

whereas the Olsen extraction method was used for soils from Whatley that generally had pH values of 7.4

and above. Following extraction by either method, orthophosphate concentration was determined by the

Vanadomolybophosphoric acid method (Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater

(1999). Of the two methods, Olsen will lead to more conservative estimates of total soil phosphate.

5 | P a g e

Data analysis

Data were collated using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, 2014). Statistical analysis was undertaken using R (RFSC,

2014). Welch two sample t-tests were used to compare site environmental parameters and summary data

on species composition. MAVIS (Dart Computing, 2000) was used to classify all the plots according to the

NVC classifications. Ellenberg’s Indicator Values (Hill et al., 1999) were also assigned to species to select

potential candidates for introduction to Whatley.

Results

Woodland Vegetation Survey

Eight woody species were recorded in the Asham Wood Canopy samples, and 19 at Whatley, though some of

the latter more typically would be understorey species in more mature woodland (Annexes 4 and 5). In both

woods, ash Fraxinus excelsior was the main canopy component (Asham mean of 23 trees per quadrat,

Whatley 43). Both areas also contained oak Quercus robur (Asham 15 trees per quadrat, Whatley 4) and

Whatley also contained Wild Cherry Prunus avium (6 per quadrat).

Understorey species were similar in the two areas with 14 recorded in Asham Wood and 22 at Whatley. In

Asham the understory was predominantly Hazel Corylus avellana (cover 75%), with small amounts of

hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, Field maple Acer campestre and Holly Ilex aquifolium. In contrast at

Whatley the understorey was less developed and comprised a more even mix of hawthorn, field maple,

hazel, oak and elder Sambucus nigra.

In Asham Wood, 133 species were

recorded in the ground flora, compared to

189 at Whatley. However few of the

ground flora species at Whatley were

woodland species and may species

recorded were single records. Overall the

mean number of species per quadrat at

Asham (18.0) was not significantly

different to that at Whatley (17), but the

mean number of ancient woodland

indicator species per quadrat recorded at

Asham (7.63) was significantly greater than

that recorded at Whatley (0.92) (p=

1.127e-09

). One example was Yellow

archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon

recorded on two occasions where it had

colonised the older area of natural

regeneration at Whatley.

In general, ground flora commonly

recorded at Asham Wood (Table 2) were

not found at Whatley e.g. Wood anemone

Anemone nemorosa, Bluebell

Hyacinthoides non-scriptus and Dog’s

Table 2. Ground flora cover and frequency recorded at Asham Wood (A) and Whatley Woodlands (W)

for species occurring in a minimum of five quadrats in either site.

6 | P a g e

Mercury Mercurialis perennis or were much less abundant e.g. Enchanter’s nightshade Circaea lutetiana,

Wood avens Geum urbanum and dog violet Viola riviniana/reichenbachiana.

NVC classifications

The Asham Wood ground flora community was classed as W8 Fraxinus excelsior – Acer campestre –

Mercurialis perennis woodland (match coefficient 55.80) or possibly W8a, the Primula vulgaris – Glechoma

hederacea sub-community (match coefficient 54.23) (both within the CORINE Biotope 41.32). In contrast,

the Whatley ground flora community equated to W24 Rubus fruiticosus- Holcus lanatus underscrub (match

coefficient 54.67), a community comprising various grasses such as Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis ,

Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus , false Oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius, plus stinging nettles Urtica dioica,

Cleavers Galium aparine and brambles Rubus fruticosus.

Environmental Factors

Mean soil nitrogen, field capacity and organic matter content did not differ significantly between Asham

Wood and Whatley Woodland (Table 3). Mean soil calcium and potassium concentrations and conductivity

were significantly higher at Whatley, suggesting greater ion or nutrient availability at Whatley however these

findings are unlikely to be of ecological significance. Soil pH was slightly acidic at Asham but neutral to

slightly alkaline at Whatley. This difference was significant. Soil phosphate concentrations were significantly

higher at Whatley, however in contrast light transmission through the canopy appeared to be significantly

higher at Asham Wood.

Soil Characterisation

The majority of Asham soils (17) were classified as loams (mainly silt loams -

8) with other samples being classed as clays (4). These soils tended to be

darker due to a well-mixed mineral and organic matter/humus layer(Figure

2). In contrast, soils from Whatley generally had a higher iron-rich clay

component (hence the red colouration); just over half (13) were classed as

silty clays with most of the rest being classed as clays (5) or slity loams (5).

These soils tended to lack sand, and with a high clay content may be poorly

drained in places.

Multivariate analysis

Clusters evident in output from a Detrended Correspondence Analysis (Figure 3) indicated that although

quadrat species composition at Asham Wood and Whatley Woodlands differed substantially, there were

areas of overlap in terms of species composition. This outcome suggests that these areas were also similar in

terms of environmental conditions. Further analysis (DCCA) to determine factors most influential on

community composition (Figure 4) indicated that soil organic matter, pH, stand age, and association with

ancient woodland vascular species were the most important determinants of community composition.

However factors such as soil nitrate and phosphate, and light transmission through the canopy were less

important influences.

Figure 2. Soil Composition by sedimentation, samples from Whatley

Woodlands (left) and Asham Wood (right) showing relative proportions of clay,

silt and sand.

7 | P a g e

Table 3. Summary statistics for environmental parameters recorded for Asham Wood Coppice Coups (A) and Whatley Woodland Plantations (W). n=24 per

site; anomalous values excluded.

Nitrate, ppm Field Capacity,

%

Organic Matter,

%

Light

transmission,%

Calcium, ppm Potassium,

ppm

pH Conductivity, µS

cm-1

Phosphate, ppm

A W A W A W A W A W A W A W A W A W

Mean 31.2 41.2 65.0 65.3 18.1 20.2 9.3 3.6 84.9 121.1 3.7 5.1 6.4 7.6 77.6 136.4 13.0 43.0

SD 33.5 29.0 7.9 10.0 4.2 5.9 6.9 4.3 32.6 71.0 1.1 1.5 0.5 0.4 21.8 77.0 16.3 28.5

Max 153.1 110.3 80.0 88.0 27.6 32.1 21.1 18.4 160.5 347.2 5.9 10.3 7.5 8.2 120.8 310.0 66.8 124.0

Min 1.0 1.7 49.0 54.0 12.1 13.4 0.6 0.1 30.1 58.3 2.0 2.9 5.7 6.8 51.0 57.6 3.3 4.0

p-value 0.2767 0.9482 0.1684 0.0019 0.0293 0.001056 2.62e-12

0.001284 7.198e-05

Discussion

Ground flora composition

There were very few records of woodland species, especially ancient woodland indicators having colonised Whatley Woodlands (Table 2). One exception

was yellow archangel recorded in an area of natural regeneration adjacent to woodland. However less specialist, more easily disperses woodland species

e.g. Ivy, Wood avens, Wild strawberry and Dog violet were recorded but at lower levels of abundance than at Asham Wood.

Given that colonisation by vascular ground flora of ancient woodland can take 50-80 (Humphrey et al., 2013), 100 years (Harmer et al., 2001) or more than

125 years even when in close proximity (168m) to an ancient semi-natural woodland (Bossuyt and Hermy, 2000; Jirova et al., 2012), it is hardly surprising

that there has been little evidence of spread to the relatively young woodlands (30-50 years) at Whatley. In addition to age and degree of isolation,

woodland size and quality (stand structure and tree species composition) are important influences on the rate of colonisation by woodland ground flora

(Humphrey et al., 2013). If there is a desire to increase the number of woodland specialists at Whatley, then intervention is required to accelerate achieve

this. Once ground flora diversity is enhanced, it is hoped that associated animal species will follow.

8 | P a g e

Figure 3. Detrended Correspondence Analysis of Ground flora all sample data for Asham Wood and

Whatley Woodland quadrats to identify clusters (circled) and similarities.

Figure 4. Detrended Cannonical Corespondence Analysis (DCCA) presenting flora with a minimum

total cover of 5% and environmental factors (as vectors) from 48 samples across both sites.

NVC analysis of the Asham Wood survey concurred with previous classification (Greenwood

Environmental, undated), confirming maintenance of its condition through management.

Ax

is 2

Axis 1

All.urs

Ane.mem

Arc.min

Aru.mac

Asp.sco

Bra.sylBro.ram

Carx.rem

Carx.sylCir.lut

Col.aut

Cra.mon

Dac.glom

Des.ces

Dry.aff

Dry.dil

Dry.filEup.amyFes.gig

Fes.rub

Fil.ulm

Fra.ves

Frax.exc

Gal.apa

Gal.odo

Ger.dis

Ger.rob

Geu.urb

Gle.hed

Hed.hel

Her.spho

Hol.lan

Hya.non

Hyp.hir

Ile.aquJun.eff

Lam.galLon.per

Mer.per

Pla.lan

Poa.tri

Pot.ste

Pri.vulPru.spi

Pte.aqu

Ran.acr

Ran.rep

Rub.fru

Rub.ida

Rum.obt

Rum.san Scr.nod Sen.jacSil.dio

Sta.sylv

Tar.off

Tri.fla

Urt.dio

Ver.mon

Vic.hir

Vic.sep

Vio.riv

-0.8

-1.6

-2.4

0.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

4.0

-1.02-2.05-3.07 1.02 2.05 3.07 4.10 5.12

Age.Variable

pH

Conductivity.uS

P.ppm

Field.Capacity

Organic.Matter

Ca.ppm

K.ppm

Light.Trans

ancient.vasc

Vector scaling: 5.18

Plant Species

9 | P a g e

Environmental Factors

The influence of light availability (solar radiation) and soil nutrient levels on ground flora

composition found for Asham and Whatley, are similar to published work (Iremonger et al., 2006).

Reduced light quantity and quality (Combe, 1957) under older coppice at Asham Wood and closed

canopy woodland plantations at Whatley can limit the competitive ability of otherwise vigorous

species that can colonise the woodland floor (Parker, 1995; White et al., 2003).

Asham Wood soils are typical of undisturbed, weathered woodland soils, being relatively uniform

and having a slightly acidic pH. The high sand content suggests the soil is derived from a wind-blown

deposit. In contrast, soils at Whatley were quite varied, presumably reflecting the effects of soil

movements (Shrestha and Lal, 2011), and mixing during bund construction. The neutral/slightly

alkaline pH and higher calcium levels may reflect the mixing of rock brash with topsoil during bund

formation and possibly calcium carbonate deposition from quarrying activities.

Phosphate is likely to be more limiting to plant growth than nitrate (Wassen et al., 2005). The

significantly higher phosphate levels at Whatley will favour the vigorous growth of competitive

species such as grasses and stinging nettles (Piggott and Taylor, 1964; Walker et al.,2004). High soil

phosphate levels are likely to be a legacy of the dairy farm soils used to form the bunds (Pick, 2014).

However this phosphate is likely to remain largely in the soil reservoir as calcium phosphate due to

the higher soil pH at Whatley. The relatively low importance of phosphate in influencing ground flora

composition (Figure 4) may reflect this, however the vigorous plant growth at Whatley suggests that

there is still a substantial effect. These high nutrients levels will pose problems for the establishment

of specialist ground flora until the canopy closes over in the Whatley Woodland, reducing light

availability and so the vigour of aggressive competitive plant species (Parker, 1995; White et al.,

2003).

Ground flora introductions.

The Whatley Quarry Biodiversity Action Plan (Hanson, 2013) has targets to increase and improve

existing ancient and secondary woodland (target 1) and to improve structure and diversity of middle

aged and young plantations (target 4). Increasing the size of woodland stands would favour

woodland ground flora by creating better conditions (Humphrey et al., 2013). Linking with existing

woodland would increase opportunities for natural colonisation, especially for more easily dispersed

species.

A range of techniques have been used for woodland reconstruction, but the main focus has been on

tree planting (flora locale, 2012). There has been limited research into the introduction of ground

flora species to enhance woodland biodiversity; rare examples include habitat creation and

translocation work by Buckley and Knight (1989), Cohn et al. (2000), and Francis and Moreton

(2001). Translocating soil seed banks from existing woodland areas generally fails as the weed seed

bank is far greater than that of woodland specialists (Ryan, 2013), though Anderson et al. (2003)

reported limited success 10 to 12 years after translocation on some sites. Translocation of individual

rare plants are reported to have a mixed success rates (Hubbard et al., 2001; Anderson et al., 2003)

and some research suggests that some suggestion that species do better when planted together

(Volis et al., 2011). Commercially produced seed mixes for broadcasting tend to be generic and

poorly tailored to a given site, are not of local provenance, and sometimes contain components that

are ecologically inappropriate and ill-suited to the woodland environment (Blakesley & Buckley,

10 | P a g e

2010). Planting or sowing individual species as bulbs, seeds or plug plants is more likely to result in

the introduction of desired species, but again provenance may be an issue (Blakesley & Buckley,

2010). Collecting local ecotypes of species from Asham and other nearby woods and propagating for

introduction is most likely to conserve local genotypes, best adapted to local conditions (flora locale,

2012). This may be best undertaken by local charities and community groups. Most

recommendations for ground flora introductions in recent literature seem to follow those of the

Highways Agency’s guidance (2005) on roadside woodlands. Unfortunately, there is also a paucity of

long-term monitoring in such schemes that otherwise could inform best practice (Parker, 1995;

Bullock, 1998).

Candidate species for introduction to Whatley Woodlands

The following selection of species for introduction draws upon the species characteristic of Asham

Wood but lacking at Whatley Woodlands. It also draws upon the environmental requirements of

those species and methods employed in previous work for their introduction to enrich woodland

biodiversity. Details including environmental requirements, site selection and planting methods are

presented in Annex 7. It is hoped that trial plots are set up in the Autumn of 2014.

Ramsons Allium ursinum and Bluebells Hyacinthoides non-scriptus and Dog’s mercury Mercurialis

perennis have been selected as they are very typical of Asham and other Mendip Woodlands. Their

introduction will help the new plantations blend into the landscape and support a range of species.

They are also quite competitive, can benefit from fairly high soil nutrient levels and adapted to quite

dense shade found in some of the maturing woodlands. There has been a reasonable level of success

introducing these species in other trials.

Wild strawberry Fragaria vesca and Dog violet Viola riviniana are species of importance in Asham as

they are primary larval food plants for the Grizzled Skipper and Sliver-washed Fritillary butterflies

(respectively) for which Asham site is noted. It is hope that these introductions will enable the

natural spread of the butterfly species.

Finally, two ancient woodland indicator species – Herb Paris Paris quadrifolia and Yellow Archangel

Lamiastrum galeobdolon. These also require dense shade in maturing plantations. The former is

normally very slow to spread and the latter has already been recorded on site, so they will provide a

contrast and test the effectiveness of introduction techniques for species that are woodland ground

flora specialists.

Conclusions and Recommendations

It is clear that woodland specialist ground flora have been typically very slow to colonise the Whatley

Woodland plantations. In order to enable these species to keep pace with developments like quarry

development, there is a need to intervene and accelerate colonisation by targeted introductions in

selected areas. These areas in the main require a closed canopy where competition from other

ground species will not lead to competitive exclusion of the woodland specialists.

If successful, these introductions could add considerably to the biodiversity value of Whatley Quarry.

However woodland management needs adjustment to maintain canopy conditions and monitoring is

required in order to determine the level of success of such introductions. Through the latter, best

practice can then be applied to other quarries of a similar nature.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Hanson/ Heidelberg Cement for the funding provided for the Quarry Life

project which has supported the students on placement and working as interns on this project. We

would also like to thank staff at Whatley Quarry for their help and support during the project, in

particular Alexandra Pick for providing considerable amounts of background data, access to sites and

directions on how not to get lost in Asham Wood.

We would also like to thank Laura Dodge and Derek Beard for their assistance with lab work.

Annex 1. References

Ash, J.E. and J. P. Barkham, J.P. (1976) Changes and Variability in the Field Layer of a Coppiced

Woodland in Norfolk, England. Journal of Ecology, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Jul., 1976), pp. 697-712

Anderson, P., Longden, K., Ball, H. & Lascelles, B (2003) CIRIA – A critical review of habitat

translocation. Report to CIRIA/Highways Agency by Penny Anderson Associates Ltd.

Avery, B. W. and Bascomb, C. L. (1982) Soil Survey Laboratory Methods. Soil Survey of England and

Wales,Harpenden, UK.

Blakesley, D. & Buckley, P. (2010) Managing your woodland for wildlife. Commissioned by

Woodlands.co.uk. Pisces Publications, Newbury.

Bossuyt, B. and Hermy, M. (2000) Restoration of the understorey layer of recent forest bordering

ancient forest, Applied Vegetation Science, 3, pages 43-50

Bruckner (2013) Water and Soil Characterization - pH and Electrical Conductivity [Online]. Available

from: http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/research_methods/environ_sampling/pH_EC.html

[accessed 02.05.14]

Buckley, G.P. & Knight, D.G. (1989) The feasibility of woodland reconstruction. In Biological Habitat

Reconstruction, Buckley G.P. (Ed), pp. 171-188. Belhaven Press, London.

Bullock, J.M. (1998) Community translocation in Britain: setting objectives and measuring

consequences. Biological Conservation, 3, pp. 199-214.

Dart Computing (2000) Modular Analysis of Vegetation Information System (MAVIS). Centre for

Ecology and Hydrology, Huntingdon.

Eaton, A. D., Clesceri, L. S., Greenberg, A. E. and Franson, M. A. H. (1998) Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th

Ed. Washington: American Public Health Association.

Flora locale (2012) Restoration Library: Woodland creation and floral enhancement. Available from:

http://www.floralocale.org/Woodland+creation+and+floral+enhancement&structure=Restoration+L

ibrary&page_ref_id=447 [Accessed 01 September 2014].

Francis, J.L. & Morton, A. (2001). Enhancement of amenity woodland field layers in Milton Keynes.

British Wildlife, 12, pp244-251.

Google Maps (2014a) Old Wells Rd [Online] Available from:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/51%C2%B012'48.0%22N+2%C2%B025'09.9%22W/@51.2133

405,-2.419423,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0 [Accessed 11 July 2014].

Google Maps (2014b) Whatley Quarry [Online] Available from:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hanson+Whatley+Quarry/@51.23248,-

2.384313,498m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x48722ea96abcd21b:0x94d6f911350a6bcd

[Accessed 14 July 2014].

Greenwood Environmental (undated) Asham Wood SSSI Management Plan 1999-2004 for Hanson

Aggregates.

Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J.G. & Hunt, R. (1990) The abridged comparative plant ecology. London: Unwin

Hyman.

Hanson (2013) Whatley Quarry Site Biodiversity Action Plan.

Harmer, R., Peterken, G., Kerr, G. and Poulton, P. (2001) Vegetation changes during 100 years of

development of two secondary woodlands on abandoned arable land, Biological Conservation, 101,

pages 291-304.

Highways Agency (2005) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 10, Section 3, Part 3HA

115/05 The establishment of an herbaceous plant layer in roadside woodland. Department for

Transport. Available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol10/section3/ha11505.pdf

[Accessed 23 September 2014]

Hill, MO, Mountford, JO, Roy, DB & Bunce, RGH (1999) ECOFACT 2a Technical Annex - Ellenberg’s

indicator values for British Plants. HMSO, London. Available from:

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/publications/documents/ecofact2a.pdf [Accessed 13th June 2014].

Hubbard, L., Ertter, B., Dennis, A. and Baskin, C. (2001) Statement opposing transplantation as

mitigation.

for impacts to rare plants, Fremontia, 29, pages 66-67Humphrey, J., Watts, K., Fuentes-Montemayor,

E., Macgregor, N., Park, K. ( 2013) The evidence base for ecological networks: lessons from studies of

woodland fragmentation and creation. The Research Agency of the Forestry Commission.

Hutchings, M.J. & Barkham, J.P. (1976) ‘An investigation of shoot interactions in Mercurialis perennis

L., a rhizomatous perennial herb.’ J. Ecol. 64, pp. 723-743

Iremonger, S., Gittings, T., Smith, G.F., Wilson, M., Oxbrough, A., Coote, L., Pithon, J., L.,

O’Donoghue, S. , Giller, P., McKee, A.-M., O’Halloran, J., Kelly, D., O ’Sullivan, A. , Neville, P., Mitchell,

F.J.G., O’Donnell, V., Kelly, D.L. and Dowding, P. (2006) Investigation of experimental methods to

enhance biodiversity in plantation forests. BIOFOREST PROJECT 3.1.3 FINAL REPORT, June 2006

Jirova, A., Klaudisova, A. and Prach, K. (2012) Spontaneous restoration of target vegetation in old

fields in a central European landscape: a repeated analysis after three decades. Applied Vegetation

Science, 15, pages 245 – 252

Microsoft (2014) Microsoft Excel: 2013 [Computer Software] Available from:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/excel/ [Accessed 13 June 2014].

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1986) The analysis of agricultural materials. London:

H.M.S.O.

Morgan (1941) Chemical soil diagnosis by the universal soil testing system. Connecticut Agric. Exp.

Stn, Bull 450.

Munsell Color Company. Munsell Soil Color Charts. 2000. Munsell Color, Gretag/Macbeth, NY.

Natural England (undated) Sites of Special Scientific Interest [Online] Available from:

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/special/sssi/sssi_details.cfm?sssi_id=1003657 [Accessed 11

July 2014].

O’Hare, G. (1990) Soils, vegetation and ecosystems. London: Oliver and Boyd.

Parker, D.M. (1995) Habitat Creation – a critical guide. English Nature Science. No. 21. Report by SGS

Environment to English Nature.

Peterken, G.P. & Game, M. (1984) Historical factors affecting the number and distribution of vascular

plant species in central Lincolnshire. J. Ecol. 72, pp. 155-182.

Pick, A. (2014) Interview with Alexandra Pick, Senior Landscape Architect Hanson, May 2014.

Piggot,C.D. & Taylor, K (1964) The Distribution of Some Woodland Herbs in Relation to the Supply of

Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Soil. Journal of Animal Ecology, 13, pp 175-185.

Rackham, O (1990) Trees and woodland in the British landscape. 2nd

Ed. Dent, London.

RFSC – The R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2014) The R Project for Statistical Computing

[Computer Software] Available from: http://www.r-project.org/index.html [Accessed 06 July 2014].

Rodwell, J.S. (1991) British plant communities: Volume 1.woodlands and scrub. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.

Rotherham, I.D., Jones, M., Smith, L. and Handley, C. (2008) Woodland heritage manual [Online]

Available from:

https://docs.google.com/a/bathspa.ac.uk/file/d/0B__bTwGiozU2eGdLUXl5TUFmUms/edit [Accessed

14 July 2014].

Rowell, D.L. (1994) Soil science: methods and applications. Harlow: Longman Scientific.

Ryan, L. (2013) Translocation and Ancient Woodland [Online] Available from:

https://docs.google.com/a/bathspa.ac.uk/file/d/0B__bTwGiozU2NnlIZU5SUE5xQW8/edit [Accessed

14 July 2014].

Shrestha, R.K. and Lal, R. (2011) Changes in physical and chemical properties of soil after surface

mining and restoration. Geoderma, 161, pp.168-176.

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (1999). 4500-P PHOSPHORUS.

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment

Federation.

Thompson, A., Knapman, D., Harris, K.., Birch, J. and Jarvis, D. (2010) An Ecosystems Approach to

Long Term Minerals Planning in the Mendip Hills: Phase II Final Report [Online] Available from:

http://www.davidjarvis.biz/pdf/11%20An%20Ecosystems%20Approach%20to%20Long%20Term%20

Minerals%20Planning%20in%20the%20Mendip%20Hills,%20%20Phase%20II%20(MA-1-S-3-

04).pdfAppendices [Accessed 11 July 2014].

Volis, S., Dorman, M., Blecher, M., Sapir, Y. and Burdeniy, L. (2011) Variation partitioning in canonical

ordination reveals no effect of soil but an effect of co-occuring species on translocation success in

Iris atrofusca, Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, pages 265 – 273

Walker, K., Stevens, P. A., Stevens, D P., Mountford, J. O., Manchester, S..J. & Pywell, R.F. (2004) The

restoration and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land formerly managed for intensive

agriculture in the UK. Biological Conservation, 119 (1), pp1-18.

Wassen, M.J.,Venterink, H.O., Lapshina, E.D. & Tannenberger, F. ( 2005) Endangered plants persist

under phosphate limitation. Nature, 437, p547-550.

White, G., Gilbert, J., Benstead, P., Fasham, M. and José, P. (Eds) (2003) Habitat creation handbook

for the minerals industry. The RSPB, Sandy.

Annex 2. Asham Wood Coppice Coups (Source: Hanson - Alexandra Pick)

Annex 3. Whatley Woodland Plantations (Source: Hanson - Alexandra Pick)

Annex 4. Asham Wood Data

Asham Wood Ground flora Composition Data based on 24 4 x 4m Quadrats (Cover, %%; P = present

in the vicinity of the quadrat). Full data sets in Excel format available on request.

NVC 4 x 4m quadrat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mean Frequency

W8 Asham Wood

non woody vascular ground

flora Cover, % No. /24

Acer campestre Field ma ple (seedl ing) 1 1 1 0.1 3

yes Ajuga reptans Bugle P 1 1 P 0.1 2

yes Allium ursinum Rams ons 1 P P 25 2 1.2 3

yes Anemone nemorosa Wood a nemone 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.7 16

Arctrium minus Common burdock P P P P 1 10 1 0.5 3

yes Arrhenatherum elatius False oat-grass 1 0.0 1

yes Arum maculatum Lords -a nd-la dies 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.6 13

yes Athyrium filix-femina La dy fern 1 2 0.1 2

yes Brachypodium sylvaticum Wood fa l s e-brome P 1 2 1 P 1 2 3 1 1 0.5 8

yes Bromus ramosus Hairy brome P 2 P 2 2 0.3 3

Calamagrostis spp Sma l l -reed s pp 1 2 0.1 2

Cardamine impatiens Narrow-lea ved Bi tter-cres s 1 1 1 0.1 3

Cardamine pratensis Cuckoo flower P 1 0.0 1

Carex pendula(?) Pendulous s edge P P 0.0 0

Carex remota Remote s edge 1 3 1 0.2 3

Carex strigosa Thin-s piked Wood-s edge 1 1 0.1 2

yes Carex sylvatica Wood s edge 1 1 1 2 P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 13

Chrysosplenium oppositofolium Golden s a xi frage 2 0.1 1

yes Circaea lutetiana Encha nter's nights ha de P 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 1.4 17

Cirsium palustre Mars h thi s tle 1 0.0 1

Cirsium vulgare Spea r thi s tle 1 1 0.1 2

Colchicum autumnae Autumn crocus 1 1 1 P 1 2 P P P 0.3 5

yes Conopodium majus Pignut P 1 1 0.1 2

Corylus avellana (seedling) Hazel (s eedl ing) 1 1 1 1 0.2 4

Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn (s eedl ing) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 1 2 2 1.0 13

yes Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair-grass 2 1 3 5 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 4 1 1.4 16

yes Dryopteris affinis Scaly ma le-fern P 1 1 1 1 0.2 4

yes Dryopteris dilatata Broa d buckler fern P 1 1 1 1 1 0.2 5

yes Dryopteris filix-mas Male fern P 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 0.5 10

Elymus caninus Bea rded Couch P 0.0 0

Epilobium spp. Wil lowherb 1 2 2 1 0.3 4

yes Euphorbia amygdaloides Wood s purge P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 13

yes Festuca gigantea Giant fes cue P 10 3 1 2 1 0.7 5

Filipendula ulmaria Mea dows weet P 5 1 1 0.3 3

yes Fragaria vesca Wild s tra wberry 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.3 6

Fraxinus excelsior As h s eedl ing (s eedl ing) 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 20 1 2 2.2 23

yes Galium aparine Cleavers P 1 1 1 P 1 1 1 2 1 3 0.5 9

yes Galium odoratum Woodruff P P 2 4 1 20 8 1.5 5

yes Geranium robertianum Herb-robert P 4 1 2 2 1 1 0.5 6

yes Geum urbanum Wood a vens /Herb bennet 1 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 2 1.6 23

yes Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy 1 1 1 1 P 1 1 15 1 2 5 2 1 1 1 1.4 14

Glyceria plicata Reed gra s s 1 0.0 1

Hedera helix Ivy 1 1 15 15 10 1.8 5

yes Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 1 0.0 1

yes Hyacinthoides non-scriptus Bluebel l 10 2 2 4 1 2 4 3 4 3 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 2 2 2.2 19

Hypericum hirsutum St John's wort P 5 3 0.3 2

Hypericum tetrapterum Squa re-s ta lked St John's -wort 2 2 0.2 2

Ilex aquifolium Hol ly (s eedl ing) 1 1 2 0.2 3

Juncus conglomeratus Clus tered rus h 1 0.0 1

Juncus effusus Soft rus h 2 1 35 2 1.7 4

yes Lamiastrum galeobdolon Yellow a rcha ngel 1 5 1 30 4 2 5 3 2.1 8

Lathyrus pratensis Mea dow vetchl ing 1 0.0 1

no Lolium perenne Perennial rye-grass 1 0.0 1

Lonicera Honeys uckle P P P 3 0.1 1

lonicera Honeys uckle (seedl ing) 1 1 0.1 2

Luzula foersteri Southern Wood-rus h 0.0 0

Lysimachia nemorum Yellow pimpernel P 1 0.0 1

Lysimachia nemorum Yellow pimpernel 1 1 0.1 2

yes Mercurialis perennis Dog's mercury 40 35 5 50 5 75 45 70 85 25 40 50 25 50 10 5 5 25 5 27.1 19

yes Orchis mascula Ea rly purple orchid P 1 P P 0.0 1

Paris quadrifolia Herb pa ri s 2 P P 0.1 1

yes Poa trivialis Meadow-grass, rough P 2 5 25 2 4 1 1 30 1 1 90 15 30 25 10 35 20 10 5 13.0 19

Polygonatum multiflorum Common s olomon's s ea l 1 P 1 1 0.1 3

yes Potentilla sterilis Barren s tra wberry 1 1 2 1 P 1 1 2 2 0.5 8

yes Primula vulgaris Primros e 1 1 P 1 P 1 1 1 1 2 0.4 8

Prunella vulgaris Self-hea l 1 1 0.1 2

yes Pteridium aquilinum Bracken P 4 0.2 1

yes Ranunculus acris Buttercup, meadow 5 0.2 1

yes Ranunculus repens Buttecup, creeping 2 0.1 1

Ribes rubrum Redcurra nt P 0.0 0

yes Rubus fruticosus agg. Blackberry 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 10 2 1 1 1.1 11

Rubus idaeus Ras pberry P 5 0.2 1

Rubus uva-crispa Wild goos eberry P 0.0 0

Rumex sanguineus Wood dock P 1 1 5 0.3 3

yes Sanicula europaea Sa nicle 1 1 0.1 2

Scrofularia nodosa Common Figwort P P 3 2 0.2 2

yes Tamus communis Black bryony P P 0.0 0

Ulmus spp. Elm (s eedl ing) 1 0.0 1

yes Urtica dioica Stinging nettle P 0.0 0

Valariana officinalis Vala ria n P P 0.0 0

Veronica chamaedrys Germa nder Speedwel l 1 1 1 1 0.2 4

yes Veronica montana Wood s peedwel l 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 5 1 3 5 2 3 2 1.7 17

Vicia sepium Bus h vetch 1 0.0 1

yes Viola riviniana/reichenbachiana Dog violet P 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 2 0.8 10

Bare Ground 4 3 5 2 2 2 15 5 5 10 30 15 5 5 1 5 1 10 5 3 5 10 5 5 6.6 24

Moss 40 50 35 35 75 50 50 50 50 25 20 25 10 5 5 20 1 5 5 10 10 50 25 50 29.2 24

Leaf/woody litter 70 20 20 20 10 5 15 15 10 15 20 25 30 35 3 5 (stump)2 2 5 5 5 15 10 10 15.3 23

Asham Wood Canopy Composition Data based on 12 50 x 50m Quadrats (Number of Trees per

quadrat). Full data sets in Excel format available on request.

Asham Wood Woody Understorey Composition based on 12 50 x 50m Quadrats (Cover, %). Full data

sets in Excel format available on request.

NVC 50 x 50m quadrat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean Frequency

W8 Asham Wood Canopy Number No. /12

yes Acer campestre Ma pl e, fie l d 4 12 2 8 1 6 3 3.0 7

yes Betula pendula Bi rch, s i l ver 2 2 1 2 10 1 12 2.5 7

yes Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn 2 1 6 0.8 3

yes Fraxinus excelsior As h 26 35 28 28 30 20 12 25 8 3 6 60 23.4 12

yes Hedera helix Ivy 1 0.1 1

yes Malus sylvestris Appl e, cra b 1 0.1 1

yes Quercus robur Oak, peduncul a te 20 10 10 20 9 15 32 20 10 2 6 30 15.3 12

yes Ulmus spp. El m 2 2 2 1 5 1.0 5

NVC 50 x 50m quadrat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean Frequency

W8 Asham Woody Understorey Cover, % No. /12

yes Acer campestre Ma pl e, fie ld 1 2 5 10 1.5 4

yes Betula pendula Birch, s i lver 1 0.1 1

yes Cornus sanguinea Dogwood 1 0.1 1

yes Corylus avellana Ha zel 100 100 100 90 80 75 65 55 100 1 85 60 75.9 12

yes Crataegus monogyna Ha wthorn 5 1 5 5 2 1 2 5 2.2 8

yes Fraxinus excelsior As h 10 0.8 1

yes Hedera helix Ivy 1 0.1 1

yes Ilex aquilfolium Hol ly 1 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 1.2 8

yes Malus sylvestris Apple , cra b 1 1 0.2 2

yes Prunus spinosa Bla ckthorn 2 5 2 0.8 3

yes Salix capra/cinera Sa l low 1 2 1 0.3 3

yes Sambucus nigra Elder 1 0.1 1

yes Ulmus spp. Elm s peci es 1 5 0.5 2

yes Viburnum lantana Wa yfari ng tree 1 0.1 1

Annex 5. Whatley Woodlands Data

Whatley Woodlands Ground flora Composition Data based on 24 4 x 4m Quadrats (Cover, %; P =

present in the vicinity of the quadrat). Full data sets in Excel format available on request. Sample 24

(highlighted in yellow) comprised semi-improved grassland, as the original planting failed.

NVC 4 x 4m quadrat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mean Frequency

W8 Whatley Woodlands

non woody vascular ground

flora Grass Cover, % No. /24

yes Acer campestre Fie ld maple (seedl i ng) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.3 6

Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore (seedl i ng) 1 0.0 1

Achillea millefolium Ya rrow 1 0.0 1

Agrimonia eupatoria Agrimony 5 40 1.9 2

Agrostis s pp. Common/creeping bent 21 1 0.9 2

yes Ajuga reptans Bugle 10 5 1 60 3.2 4

yes Allaria petiolata Hedge garlic 1 10 0.5 2

yes Allium ursinum Ra ms ons P 0.0 0

Alnus cordata Ita l ia n a lder (s eedl ing) 1 0.0 1

Alnus viridis Green a lder (seedl i ng) 1 0.0 1

Anacamptis pyramidalis Pyramidal Orchid P 0.0 0

Arctrium minus Common burdock P 0.0 0

Arrhenatherum elatius False oat-grass 5 5 20 50 10 3 60 50 5 1 10 1 9.2 12

yes Arum maculatum Lords -a nd-la di es 1 1 1 0.1 3

Bellis perennis Da isy P 0.0 0

yes Brachypodium sylvaticum Wood fa ls e-brome 2 0.1 1

Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome 1 0.0 1

Bromus sterilis Ba rren brome 1 0.0 1

yes Carex sylvatica Wood s edge 2 0.1 1

Cerastium fontanum Common mous e-ear 1 1 1 0.1 3

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxe-eye dais y P 0.0 0

yes Circaea lutetiana Encha nter's nightshade 5 1 0.3 2

no Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle 2 2 0.2 2

yes Corylus avellana (seedling) Ha zel (s eedl ing) 1 0.0 1

Crataegus monogyna Ha wthorn (s eedl i ng) 1 1 1 2 1 0.3 5

Crepis capillaris Smoot hawk's bea rd 0.0 0

Crepis vesicaria Beaked ha wk's beard 1 0.0 1

Cynosurus cristatus Crested dog's ta i l 1 0.0 1

no Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot 2 1 0.1 2

yes Dactylorhiza fucsii Common s potted orchi d P P 0.0 0

yes Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair-grass 1 2 0.1 2

yes Dryopteris dilatata Broad buckler fern P 1 0.0 1

yes Dryopteris filix-mas Ma le fern 3 1 P 1 2 0.3 4

no Elytrigia repens Couch 2 0.1 1

Epilobium spp. Wi l lowherb 1 1 0.1 2

Euonymous europaeus Spindle seedl i ng 1 0.0 1

no Festuca rubra Fescue, red 30 50 30 5 50 30 5 8.3 7

yes Fragaria vesca Wi ld strawberry 1 5 0.3 2

Fraxinus excelsior As h s eedl ing (s eedl ing) 1 2 1 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 40 2 3 2 2.9 14

yes Galium aparine Cleavers 1 5 1 3 5 1 1 1 2 2 0.9 10

Geranium dissectum Cut-leaved cranes bi l l 1 2 1 1 0.2 4

yes Geranium robertianum Herb-robert 1 5 0.3 2

yes Geum urbanum Wood a vens /Herb bennet 1 1 1 2 5 2 1 0.5 7

yes Glechoma hederacea Ground ivy 5 2 30 10 5 2.2 5

yes Hedera helix Ivy 1 5 1 80 50 2 2 5.9 7

Heracleum mantegazzanum Gia nt hogweed (?) P 0.0 0

yes Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed 1 3 3 10 0.7 4

yes Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 30 30 20 2 10 1 3.9 6

Hypericum maculatum Imperfora te St John's -wort 0.0 0

yes Ilex aquifolium Hol ly (s eedl ing) 1 1 2 0.2 3

Knautia arvensis Fie ld scabious P P 0.0 0

Lamiam album White dea d-nettl e 1 1 1 0.1 3

yes Lamiastrum galeobdolon Yel low archa ngel 2 1 0.1 2

yes Lapsanna communis Nipple-wort P 1 0.0 1

Lathyrus pratensis Meadow vetchl ing 1 0.0 1

lingustrum vulgare Wi ld privet 1 5 0.3 2

no Lolium perenne Perennial rye-grass 1 0.0 1

Malva moschata Musk mal low 0.0 0

Medicago lupulina Bla ck medic 1 0.0 1

Myosotis arvensis Fie ld Forget-me-not 1 0.0 1

yes Oxalis acetosella Wood s orrel 0.0 0Phyllitis(Asplenium)

scolopendriumHa rt's tongue fern 1 3 1 2 0.3 4

no Plantago lanceolata Plantain, ribwort 1 4 15 0.8 3

yes Poa trivialis Meadow-grass, rough 15 5 50 25 30 60 2 2 2 5 30 30 5 1 10 20 5 3 12.5 18

yes Polystichum setiferum Soft s hi eld fern P 0.0 0

yes Potentilla sterilis Ba rren s trawberry 1 0.0 1

yes Primula vulgaris Pri mros e 1 0.0 1

Prunella vulgaris Se l f-hea l 1 0.0 1

no Prunus avium Cherry (seedl ing) 1 1 1 0.1 3

yes Prunus spinosa Bla ckthorn (s eedl ing) 1 1 1 1 1 3 0.3 6

no Quercus cerris Turkey Oa k (seedl ing) 1 1 0.1 2

Quercus s pp. Oa k (seedl ing) 1 1 0.1 2

Whatley Woodlands Ground flora Composition Data (continued)

Whatley Woodlands Canopy Composition Data based on 9 50 x 50m Quadrats (Number of Trees per

quadrat). Full data sets in Excel format available on request.

NVC 4 x 4m quadrat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mean Frequency

W8 Whatley Woodlands

non woody vascular ground

flora Grass Cover, % No. /24

yes Ranunculus acris Buttercup, meadow 1 1 0.1 2

yes Ranunculus repens Buttecup, creeping 1 20 1 5 60 4 1 3.8 7

Ribes rubrum Redcurrant P 0.0 0

Rosa canina agg. Dog ros e 1 2 3 0.3 3

yes Rubus fruticosus agg. Blackberry 1 2 2 15 15 2 1 1.6 7

Rubus idaeus Ra spberry 1 0.0 1

no Rumex acetosa Sorrel, common P P 0.0 0

Rumex conglomeratus Clustered dock 2 0.1 1

Rumex obtusifolius Borad-l ea ved dock 1 0.0 1

Rumex spp. Dock spp 1 2 3 0.3 3

Sambucus nigra Elder (s eedl ing) 1 5 1 0.3 3

Sambucus nigra Elder 5 0.2 1

Scrofularia nodosa common Figwort P 0.0 0

Senecio jacobaea Ra gwort 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 0.5 7

Silene dioica Red campion 30 5 2 1.5 3

yes Stachys sylvatica Hedge woundwort 25 2 1 1 5 5 1.6 6

Stellaria graminea Les ser s ti tchwort P 0.0 0

yes Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 0.5 7

Torilis japonica Upright hedge-pa rs l ey 1 2 0.1 2

Trifolium dubium Les ser trefoi l 0.0 0

Trifolium pratense Red clover 1 0.0 1

Trifolium repens White clover 1 1 0.1 2

Trisetum flavescens Yel low oa t-gras s 5 0.2 1

yes Urtica dioica Stinging nettle 5 1 5 1 2 15 4 50 10 2 90 50 9.8 12

Veronica chamaedrys Germander s peedwel l P 1 0.0 1

yes Veronica montana Wood s peedwel l 10 10 0.8 2

Veronica serpyllifolia Thyme-l ea ved s peedwel l 1 0.0 1

Vicia hirsuta Ha iry ta re 0.0 0

Vicia sativa Common vetch 3 5 0.3 2

Vicia sepium Bush vetch 2 1 5 1 0.4 4

yes Viola riviniana/reichenbachiana Dog violet 3 2 P 0.2 2

Bare Ground 2 1 5 10 40 2 2 85 3 5 4 2 10 15 90 30 10 1 1 5 2 13.5 21

Moss 1 5 10 5 5 2 5 1 2 5 30 5 2 3 5 5 3 15 40 5 10 2 60 9.4 23

Leaf/woody litter 1 3 2 3 10 35 1 2 3 2 7 5 1 2 5 60 10 50 2 2 30 70 5 13.0 23

NVC 50 x 50m quadrat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Frequency

W8 Whatley Woodlands Canopy WhatleyWhatleyWhatleyWhatleyWhatleyWhatleyWhatleyWhatleyWhatleyNumber No. /9

yes Acer campestre Ma ple, field 8 2 1.1 2

yes Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 1 3 2 1 0.8 4

yes Betula pendula Bi rch, s i l ver 8 0.9 1

yes Corylus avellana Ha zel 4 0.4 1

yes Crataegus monogyna Ha wthorn 2 0.2 1

yes Fagus sylvatica Beech 2 5 0.8 2

yes Fraxinus excelsior As h 41 53 69 83 29 54 37 18 42.7 8

no Juglans regia Walnut 4 0.4 1

yes Prunus avium Cherry, wi ld 26 5 24 6.1 3

yes Quercus robur Oa k, peduncula te 6 9 6 7 10 4.2 5

yes Taxus baccata Yew 1 0.1 1

yes Tilia s pp. Lime 2 0.2 1

yes Tilia cordata Lime, s ma l l leaved 3 2 0.6 2

yes Ulmus spp. Elm 2 0.2 1

noSorbus x intermedia

Swedis h

whi tebeam 15 1.7 1

no Alnus cordata Ita l ian a lder 25 2 3.0 2

no Alnus incana Grey a lder 2 2 0.4 2

yes Larix spp Larch 17 1.9 1

no Prunus avium Cherry, bi rd 19 2.1 1

Whatley Woodlands Woody Understorey Composition based on 9 50 x 50m Quadrats (Cover, %). Full

data sets in Excel format available on request.

Annex 6. Box Plots of Key Parameters

a. Soil pH. A, n= 24; W, n=22; WG=1

b. Soil conductivity. A, n= 24; W, n=22; WG=1

NVC 50 x 50m quadrat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean Frequency

W8 Whatley Woodland Understorey Number No. /9

yes Acer campestre Maple, fi el d 8 3 15 6 22 9 7.0 6

yes Cornus sanguinea Dogwood 2 0.2 1

yes Corylus avellana Ha zel 1 2 7 4 4 13 4 3.9 7

yes Crataegus monogyna Ha wthorn 22 5 2 44 18 9 11.1 6

yes Euonymus europaeus Spindl e 9 2 1.2 2

yes Fagus sylvatica Beech 10 1.1 1

yes Fraxinus excelsior As h 14 1 1.7 2

yes Hedera helix Ivy 7 5 1.3 2

yes Ilex aquilfolium Hol ly 1 2 7 1.1 3

yes Ligustrum vulgare Privet, wi ld 1 0.1 1

yes Prunus avium Cherry, wi ld 4 0.4 1

yes Prunus spinosa Bla ckthorn 1 2 0.3 2

yes Quercus robur Oa k, peduncula te 6 6 26 4 1 4.8 5

yes Sambucus nigra El der 34 3.8 1

yes Taxus baccata Yew 2 0.2 1

yes Tilia cordata Lime, s ma l l leaved 5 1 0.7 2

yes Viburnum lantana Wa yfaring tree 1 0.1 1

yes Malus spp Apple 5 0.6 1

no Sorbus x internmedia Swedi sh whi tebeam 2 0.2 1

yes Viburnum opulus Guel der rose 2 6 0.9 2

No Alnus cordata I ta l ia n a lder 4 0.4 1

No Prunus avium Cherry, bird 2 0.2 1

c. Light Transmission through the canopy. A, n= 24;

W, n=22; WG=0

d. Soil Phosphate concentration. A, n = 24; W, n= 23;

WG, n=1

Figures a-d. Boxplots of selected environmental parameters recorded for Asham Wood Coppice

Coups (A) and Whatley Woodland Plantations (W). WG = a grassland area at Whatley where tree

planting initially failed. Outlier values are indicated. Anomalous values are excluded.

Figure e. Frequency of ancient woodland indicator ground flora species per quadrat at Asham Wood

and Whatley Woodlands. N=24 per site.

Annex 7. Candidate species for introduction to Whatley Woodlands.

For further information on planting and propagation methods, sowing and planting rates please refer to: Francis and Moreton (2001), White et

al., (2003), and Highways Agency (2005)

Ellenberg Indicator Scores (higher

scores indicate greater levels

required)

Environmental

notes

Life History

and

distribution

notes

Propagation

/spread

Associated

species

Introduction Notes

Species L -

Light

F -

Moisture

R -

pH

N -

Nitrogen

Allium ursinum

- Ramsons

4 6 7 7

Prefers damper

soils.

Highly

characteristic

of Mendip.

Perennial,

surviving

between

seasons as a

bulb.

Vernal

Seed (poor

dispersal)

Bulb planting

Food plant

of adult

Myopa

(hoverflies)

Clear ground, sow seeds or

translocate bulbs 1 to 2 m

above the base of a north-

facing bund.

Fragaria vesca

- Wild

strawberry

6 5 6 4

Requires some

light to

succeed.

Prefers

woodland

edge and

clearings.

Seed

Stolons

(vegetative

runners,

especially in

lower light).

Propagate by

collecting

stolons to

Primary

food plant

for Grizzled

Skipper

Pyrgus

malvae

larvae (BAP)

Clear ground. Collect

runners from a variety of

locations, propagate and

transplant into areas across

the transition from

woodlands to clearings.

Ellenberg Indicator Scores (higher

scores indicate greater levels

required)

Environmental

notes

Life History

and

distribution

notes

Propagation

/spread

Associated

species

Introduction Notes

create plug

plants.

Hyacinthoides

non-scriptus -

Bluebell

5 5 5 6

Can form

dense stands

Seed

Bulb (WCA 1981

reqts.)

Early source

of pollen &

nectar

Some protection illegal for

landowners to dig them up

for sale, or for others to

take them.

Lamiastrum

galeobdolon –

Yellow

Archangel

4 5 7 6

Vigorous in

limestone

nitrogen rich

soils. Adapted

to shade.

Can form

dense carpets

Underground

rhizomes

Seed. Collect

Rhizomes and

propagate plug

plants.

Food plant

of pollen

beatles

A potential strong colonist.

Mercurialis

perennis –

Dog’s Mercury

3 6 7 7

Affinity with

alkaline soils.

Tolerant of

very deep

shade

(especially

female plants).

Growth

favoured by

nitrates

Male and

female plants.

Typical of

limestone soils

of the Mendip

Hills and

Somerset

Spreads by seed

and rhizomes.

Propagate by

collecting

rhizomes from

male and

female plants.

Food plant

of weevil

beetles, flea

beetle

Plant as clusters to aid

formation of a dense

carpet.

Paris

quadrifolia –

Herb Paris

3 6 7 6+

Affinity for

deep shade

and alkaline

soils

Limited seed

dispersal

capabilities;

slow to

germinate.

By seed. Food plant

of

Parallelomm

a paridis

Collect seed by hand. Sow

in autumn to enable the

opportunity for

vernalisation.

Ellenberg Indicator Scores (higher

scores indicate greater levels

required)

Environmental

notes

Life History

and

distribution

notes

Propagation

/spread

Associated

species

Introduction Notes

Viola riviniana

- Dog violet

6 5 5 4

Primary

food plant

for Sliver-

washed

Fritillary

larvae

Tolerates shade but needs

some light to flourish. A

perennial spreading solely

by seed and/or

rhizomatous. Larval food

plant of the Silver-washed

fritillary butterfly Argynnis

paphia.