Post on 13-Feb-2017
transcript
TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance:
Design, incorporation and monitoring of
Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping
TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance:
Design, incorporation and monitoring of
Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping
July 2014
* Connop, S. Lindsay, R., Freeman, J, Clough, J., Kadas, G. and Nash, C.
Environmental Research Group
University of East London
* Corresponding author: s.p.connop@uel.ac.uk
Cover photo: Bee wolf on flower at Barking Riverside © Stuart Connop
© University of East London 2014
Printed in Great Britain at the University of East London, 4-6 University Way, Docklands,
London, UK, E16 2RD
Connop, S. Lindsay, R., Freeman, J, Clough, J., Kadas, G. and Nash, C. (2014) TURAS multidisciplinary urban landscape design guidance: Design, incorporation and monitoring of Bark ing Riverside brownfield landscaping. University of East London, London, UK.
2
Table of contents
Page
1 Executive summary.......................................................................... 9
2 Background...................................................................................... 12
2.1 TURAS.............................................................................................. 12
2.2 Urban green infrastructure................................................................ 12
2.3 Regional context - East Thames Corridor, UK.................................. 14
2.4 Barking Riverside.............................................................................. 15
3 Incorporating key habitat features into landscape design........... 17
4 Monitoring......................................................................................... 20
4.1 Establishment of baseline data.......................................................... 21
4.2 Annual monitoring.............................................................................. 22
4.3 Three levels of monitoring................................................................. 23
Vegetation monitoring....................................................................... 23
Invertebrate monitoring..................................................................... 24
Brownfield habitat monitoring............................................................ 26
5 Results.............................................................................................. 27
5.1 Vegetation monitoring....................................................................... 27
5.1.1 Synusial baseline................................................................ 27
5.1.2 Annual fixed-point monitoring............................................. 67
5.1.3 Ground survey of vegetation.............................................. 106
5.2 Invertebrate monitoring..................................................................... 118
5.2.1 Timed counts...................................................................... 118
5.2.2 Sweep nets......................................................................... 157
5.2.3 Pitfall trapping..................................................................... 163
5.3 Brownfield habitat monitoring............................................................ 182
6 Summary............................................................................................ 184
7 Acknowledgements.......................................................................... 194
8 References........................................................................................ 195
Appendix 1........................................................................................ 200
A1.1 2010 sweep net results....................................................... 200
A1.2 2011 sweep net results....................................................... 201
A1.3 2012 sweep net results....................................................... 204
A1.4 2013 sweep net results....................................................... 207
Appendix 2........................................................................................ 215
A2.1 2010 pitfall trap results........................................................ 215
A2.2 2011 pitfall trap results........................................................ 218
A2.3 2012 pitfall trap results........................................................ 220
A2.4 2013 pitfall trap results......................................................... 232
Appendix 3 - Brownfield habitat assessment form............................ 248
Appendix 4 - Location of fixed-point markers.................................... 252
3
List of Figures
Page
Figure 3.1 Plan of Barking Riverside site........................................................... 18
Figure 3.2 Aerial photo of Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping site........ 18
Figure 3.3 Plan of Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping habitat pockets. 19
Figure 3.4 Detailed plan of main bank base and bee habitat plan.................... 19
Figure 4.2.1 Natural England survey timing guidance......................................... 22
Figure 5.1.1 Synusia identified at Barking Riverside office landscaping.............. 27
Figure 5.1.2 Floral diversity in BR01, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 106
Figure 5.1.3 Floral diversity in BR02, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 107
Figure 5.1.4 Floral diversity in BR03, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 107
Figure 5.1.5 Floral diversity in BR04, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 108
Figure 5.1.6 Floral diversity in BR05, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping 108
Figure 5.1.7 Floral diversity in BR06, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 109
Figure 5.1.8 Floral diversity in BR07, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 109
Figure 5.1.9 Floral diversity in BR08, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 110
Figure 5.1.10 Floral diversity in BR09, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 110
Figure 5.1.11 Floral diversity in BR10, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 111
Figure 5.1.12 Floral diversity in BR11, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 111
Figure 5.1.13 Floral diversity in BR12, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 112
Figure 5.1.14 Floral diversity in BR13, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 112
Figure 5.1.15 Floral diversity in BR14, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 113
Figure 5.1.16 Floral diversity in BR15, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 113
Figure 5.1.17 Floral diversity in BR16, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 114
Figure 5.1.18 Floral diversity in BR17, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 114
Figure 5.1.19 Floral diversity in BR18, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 115
Figure 5.1.20 Floral diversity in BR19, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. 115
Figure 5.1.21 Average floral diversity for Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping, soft landscaping and remaining brownfield area........ 117
Figure 5.2.1 Location of timed invertebrate survey areas (ISAs)......................... 118
Figure 5.2.2 Plan of Barking Riverside site........................................................... 119
Figure 5.2.3 Aerial photo of the Rivergate Community Centre soft landscaping invertebrate survey areas................................................................ 120
Figure 5.2.4 Average timed bumblebee counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013.................................................................................................. 126
4
Figure 5.2.5 Average timed butterfly counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013... 128
Figure 5.2.6 Total number of species of bumblebee observed at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013................................................... 130
Figure 5.2.7 Total number of species of butterfly observed at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013................................................... 131
Figure 5.2.8 Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010............... 141
Figure 5.2.9 Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011............... 142
Figure 5.2.10 Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012..................................................................................... 143
Figure 5.2.11 Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013..................................................................................... 144
Figure 5.2.12 Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010............... 145
Figure 5.2.13 Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011............... 146
Figure 5.2.14 Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012..................................................................................... 147
Figure 5.2.15 Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013..................................................................................... 148
Figure 5.2.16 Average timed Bombus humilis counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013.................................................................................... 150
Figure 5.2.17 Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010............... 151
Figure 5.2.18 Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011............... 152
Figure 5.2.19 Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012..................................................................................... 153
Figure 5.2.20 Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013..................................................................................... 154
Figure 5.2.21 Invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside sweep net samples, 2012................................................................................... 160
5
Figure 5.2.22 Invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside sweep net samples, 2013................................................................................... 160
Figure 5.2.23 Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the sweep net samples at Barking Riverside, August 2013.................................................................................................. 161
Figure 5.2.24 Total rarity scores for conservation priority Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the sweep net samples at Barking Riverside, August 2013........................................................ 163
Figure 5.2.25 Location of pitfall traps at Barking Riverside Office Landscaping 164
Figure 5.2.26 Total number of invertebrates caught in pitfall traps, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010....................................... 166
Figure 5.2.27 Total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010.......................... 166
Figure 5.2.28 Number of Coleoptera and Araneae individuals recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010....... 167
Figure 5.2.29 Number of Coleoptera and Araneae species recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010....... 168
Figure 5.2.30 Total number of invertebrates caught in pitfall traps, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011....................................... 169
Figure 5.2.31 Total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011.......................... 170
Figure 5.2.32 Number of Coleoptera and Araneae species recorded in each pitfall trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011....... 171
Figure 5.2.33 Average invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside pitfall samples, 2012................................................................................... 173
Figure 5.2.34 Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2012...... 175
Figure 5.2.35 Species rarity scores for Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2012.................................................................................................. 176
Figure 5.2.36 Average invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside pitfall samples, 2013................................................................................... 178
Figure 5.2.37 Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2013...... 180
Figure 5.2.38 Total species rarity scores for Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2013..................................................................... 181
6
List of Tables
Page
Table 5.2.1 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of all bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the
soft landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013..... 132
Table 5.2.2 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of all butterflies on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft
landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013............ 133
Table 5.2.3 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of bumblebee diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with
the soft landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013...................................................................................................................... 134
Table 5.2.4 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of butterfly diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013..... 135
Table 5.2.5 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of all bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013...................................................................................................................... 136
Table 5.2.6 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of all butterflies on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and
2013...................................................................................................................... 137
Table 5.2.7 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of bumblebee diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with
the brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013........................................................................ ....................................... 139
Table 5.2.8 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of butterfly diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013...................................................................................................................... 140
Table 5.2.9 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed counts of Bombus humilis individuals on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with the brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and
2013............................................................................................................ .......... 155
Table 5.2.10 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the pitfall trap invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with brownfield
habitat and the soft landscaping ISAs at Barking Riverside, August 2012........... 174
Table 5.2.11 Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the pitfall trap invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with brownfield
habitat and the soft landscaping ISAs at Barking Riverside, August 2013........... 179
Table A1.1.1 Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting........................................ 200
Table A1.1.2 Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting......................... 200
Table A1.1.3 Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank...................................................... 200
Table A1.1.4 Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting......................................... 200
Table A1.1.5 Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting........................ 200
Table A1.1.6 Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting........................... 201
7
Table A1.1.7 Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control................................. 201
Table A.1.2.1 Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting........................................ 201
Table A.1.2.2 Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting......................... 201
Table A1.2.3 Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank...................................................... 202
Table A1.2.4 Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting........................................ 202
Table A1.2.5 Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting........................ 203
Table A1.2.6 Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting........................... 203
Table A1.2.7 Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control.................................. 203
Table A1.3.1 Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting....................................... 204
Table A1.3.2 Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting......................... 204
Table A1.3.3 Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank...................................................... 205
Table A1.3.4 Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting......................................... 205
Table A1.3.5 Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting........................ 206
Table A1.3.6 Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting........................... 206
Table A1.3.7 Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control.................................. 206
Table A1.3.8 Sweep net survey species, ISA8 - soft landscaping area..................................... 207
Table A1.3.9 Sweep net survey species, ISA9 - soft landscaping area..................................... 207
Table A1.3.10 Sweep net survey species, ISA10 - soft landscaping area................................... 207
Table A1.4.1 Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting........................................ 207
Table A1.4.2 Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting......................... 208
Table A1.4.3 Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank...................................................... 209
Table A1.4.4 Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting......................................... 210
Table A1.4.5 Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting........................ 210
Table A1.4.6 Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting........................... 211
Table A1.4.7 Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control.................................. 212
Table A1.4.8 Sweep net survey species, ISA8 - soft landscaping area..................................... 213
Table A1.4.9 Sweep net survey species, ISA9 - soft landscaping area..................................... 214
Table A1.4.10 Sweep net survey species, ISA10 - soft landscaping area................................... 214
Table A2.1 Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and A, summer 2010................... 215
Table A2.2 Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and A, summer 2011................... 218
Table A2.3.1 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA1 2012............................................. .................. 220
Table A2.3.2 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA2 2012............................................................... 221
Table A2.3.3 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA3 2012............................................................... 223
Table A2.3.4 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA4 2012............................................................... 225
Table A2.3.5 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA5 2012............................................................... 227
8
Table A2.3.6 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA6 2012............................................................... 228
Table A2.3.7 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA7 2012............................................................... 230
Table A2.3.8 Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 8, 9 and 10 2012............................................. 231
Table A2.4.1 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA1 2013............................................................... 232
Table A2.4.2 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA2 2013............................................................... 234
Table A2.4.3 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA3 2013............................................................... 235
Table A2.4.4 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA4 2013............................................................... 237
Table A2.4.5 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA5 2013............................................................... 238
Table A2.4.6 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA6 2013............................................................... 240
Table A2.4.7 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA7 2013............................................................... 242
Table A2.4.8 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA8a 2013............................................................. 244
Table A2.4.9 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA9a 2013............................................................. 245
Table A2.4.10 Pitfall trap survey results for ISA10 2013............................................................. 246
9
1. Executive Summary
The increasing proportion of people living in urban areas has led to a range of
environmental issues and sustainability challenges. In order to ensure that urban
living is sustainable and that cities have the resilience to cope with environmental
change these challenges must be met.
Restoration and re-creation of green infrastructure in urban areas is a potential
solution to many of these challenges and in high density urban areas with little usable
space at ground level, roof level green infrastructure has perhaps the greatest
potential to contribute to re-greening urban areas.
Given the increasing recognition that the natural environment can provide goods and
services of benefit to humans and the planet (‘ecosystem services’), and that these
services can provide resilience for urban areas, the European Commission is now
advocating well -planned green infrastructure that provides opportunities to protect
and enhance biodiversity.
Transitioning Towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability (TURAS) is an FP7
funded European-wide research and development programme with the aim of
enabling European cities and their rural interfaces to build vitally -needed resilience in
the face of significant sustainability challenges through Knowledge Transfer
Partnerships.
In order to maximise biodiversity, and the associated ecosystem services, in urban
areas it is necessary to incorporate local and regional environmental context into the
design of urban green infrastructure.
Following the incorporation of brownfield habitat characterised landscape design at
Barking Riverside offices, a TURAS research project was established to assess and
monitor the value of the landscaping in terms of biodiversity supported.
Monitoring comprised a mix of photographic, vegetation, invertebrate and brownfield
habitat assessment surveys with the aim of quantifying the range of habitat niches
(synusia), the effect of these synusia on overall site biodiversity, and the effect of
management on maintaining the diversity of habitats and species. Comparisons were
also made with more traditional soft urban landscaping within the Barking Riverside
development and a neighbouring brownfield area of the site.
Twenty-two permanent fixed-point monitoring positions were established throughout
the brownfield and soft landscaping from which site development could be monitored.
Fixed-points were located in the best positions to capture change in the different
habitat areas.
Stereo photographs were taken from each fixed-point to act as a permanent record of
the development of the landscaping. Within the field of view of each fixed point photo
10
pair, the habitat was characterised into synusia and the vegetation within each
synusia was recorded.
In total, 5 synusia were identified within the brownfield landscaping. Within these
synusia, a maximum of 148 species of higher plant plus mosses, lichen and fungi
were recorded in 2012. This represented substatial floral diversity within an area of
approximately 0.5 ha of urban landscaping.
Many of the floral species recorded on the brownfield landscaping pockets were
those considered to be representative of the high quality brownfield habitats within
the region that the landscaping was designed to emulate. Comparison with soft
landscaping pockets of approximately equivalent size revealed that most of the key
brownfield flora was absent and floral diversity was significantly lower than in the
brownfield landscaping pockets.
Invertebrate surveys comprised timed bumblebee and butterfly counts, sweep net
surveys and pitfall trap surveys designed to capture a representative view of overall
habitat quality for ground dwelling invertebrates and those on the herb and shrub
layer vegetation.
Invertebrate species recorded on the landscaping included several species of
national conservation concern, most notably two UKBAP bumblebee species, and
RDB1 (+ Extinct) and RDB2 species, several nationally rare and scarce species as
well as numerous Essex Red Data book species.
Brownfield landscaping consistently outperformed soft landscaping areas in terms of
overall invertebrate diversity and for specific target indicator group (Aranaea,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera) numbers, diversity and conservation importance.
Timed observational surveys and pitfall trapping revealed variation across the
landscaping relative to habitat heterogeneity. This indicated that the mosaic of
habitats created within the landscaping may have been enhancing overall site
biodiversity.
Timed bumblebee and butterfly counts appeared to be correlated with habitat type,
floral type and floral abundance. Wildflower meadow areas and areas of ornamental
planting with floral species that appeared to be preferred by foraging bumblebees
consistently recorded the highest bumblebee numbers and diversity. Counts on
brownfield landscaping and brownfield habitat areas were consistently higher for both
bumblebee and butterflies than corresponding soft landscaping areas.
Annual comparison of timed counts indicated an initial increase in both bumblebee
and butterfly numbers as the landscaping developed. By 2013, however, bumblebee
numbers and diversity on the landscaping had declined. This indicated that
management interventions were too infrequent to maintain an flower-rich sward.
In contrast butterfly numbers increased year on year indicating an association with
the more mature grass-dominated swards. To ensure habitat provision for
11
bumblebees and butterflies it is thus recommended that wildflower areas be managed
on a 3 year rotation to provide all of the habitat successional stages.
Use of the Brownfield Habitat Assessment form proved to be an effective broad -brush
approach to assessing the quality of the brownfield landscaping in relation to meeting
the targets of incorporating brownfield habitat features into the urban landscaping
initiative. Assessment indicated that the landscaping created had produced a good
approximation of high quality brownfield sites containing several of the key habitat
features but also some negative indicator features.
Annual assessment provided additional evidence to support the development of a
management plan for the conservation of brownfield habitat characteristics within the
landscaping with particular focus on retaining the open flower-rich areas. Results
indicated a need for increased management intervention to mimic the disturbance
regime typical on many brownfield sites to maintain the open swards, floral richness
and abundance of flowers.
Overall results of the monitoring demonstrated that, if designed to mimic habitat of
regional value, carefully planned green infrastructure within sustainable development
could support biodiverse ecosystems containing species of regional and national
conservation value. Such green infrastructure would also be expected to provide a
broader array of additional ecosystem services benefits than generic urban soft
landscaping.
Continued monitoring of the landscaping is vital to establish the appropriate levels of
management for a habitat type typically managed by disturbance, drought and
contamination in the wider landscape. It is also important to monitor patterns of
biodiversity value on the landscaping as the Barking Riverside brownfield site as a
whole continues to be developed.
Nevertheless, preliminary results on the benefits of incorporating regionally important
conservation priority habitat features in urban landscaping initiatives were very
positive and it is hoped that this study will provide enough evidence to encourage the
roll out of similar initiatives using such biomimicry across our urban fabric both in the
UK and globally.
12
2. Background
2.1. TURAS
Transitioning Towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability (TURAS) is an FP7 funded
European-wide research and development programme. The “TURAS” project aims to bring
together urban communities, researchers, local authorities and SMEs to research, develop,
demonstrate and disseminate transition strategies and scenarios to enable European cities
and their rural interfaces to build vitally-needed resilience in the face of significant
sustainability challenges (Collier et al. 2013). To ensure maximum impact, the TURAS project
has developed an innovative twinning approach bringing together decision makers in local
authorities with SMEs and academics to ensure meaningful results and real change are
implemented over the duration of the project. Eleven local authorities or local development
agencies are involved as partners in the project and they will orient research and
development from the outset towards the priority sustainability and resilience challenges
facing their cities. Nine leading academic research inst itutions and six SMEs will work with
these cities helping them to reduce their urban ecological footprint through proposing new
visions, feasibility strategies, spatial scenarios and guidance tools to help cities address these
challenges. The specific challenges addressed in TURAS include: climate change adaptation
and mitigation; natural resource shortage and unprecedented urban growth.
Over the five year duration of the project, the feasibility of these new approaches will be
tested in selected case study neighbourhoods. The impact of these new approaches will be
measured and results compared between participating cities before a final set of strategies
and tools will be developed for demonstration, dissemination and exploitation in other
European cities. This report represents a dissemination tool from Work Package 2 (WP2) of
TURAS - Greening Public and Private Urban Infrastructure. The aim of WP2 is to develop
new visions, feasibility strategies, spatial scenarios and guidance tools to enhance the
biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits of urban green infrastructure. This report
represents an overview of the brownfield landscaping design research carried out at Barking
Riverside (London UK) as part of TURAS to investigate the effect on biodiversity of designing
urban landscaping inspired by regionally important habitat.
2.2. Urban Green Infrastructure
"Green Infrastructure (GI) is the network of natural and semi-natural areas,
features and green spaces in rural and urban, terrestrial, freshwater, coastal
and marine areas" (Naumann et al. 2011).
13
The extent and financial cost of global biodiversity loss is only just being realised (Pushpam
2010). From pollinator declines to the loss of coastal protection services associated with
mangrove swamps and coral reefs, anthropogenic-driven loss of ecosystem services has
impacted communities, government and industry worldwide.
Nowhere is this impact more noticeable than in the mega-cities that dominate our urban
landscapes. Currently more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities. This is predicted
to rise to almost 5 billion by 2030 (UNFPA 2007). Built upon old models of high-density living
and economic development, cities suffer numerous environmental impacts associated with
the loss of biodiversity (White 2002):
cities represent major consumers of energy;
urban heat island effect leads to problems with air quality, energy use and ambient
temperatures;
large expanses of impervious surfaces result in rapid rainwater run‐off and
overloading of storm drains and increases the tendency of rivers to overtop their
banks and flood surrounding land (Environment Agency 2002; Villareal et al. 2004;
Mentens et al. 2006);
quality and quantity of water held in the soil immediately beneath the hard surfaces is
reduced (Foster et al 1998; Marsalek et al. 2006);
surface seepage to re‐charge groundwater aquifers is reduced;
effective desert conditions are created for wildli fe squeezed between urban
expansion and agricultural intensification;
significantly reduced possibilities for contact with nature with a limited range of
synurbic species (Moss and Chadwick 2012) resulting in a reduction in the health and
well‐being of communities (English Nature 2003).
Restoration of greenspace is a potential intervention for all of these problems. Establishing
biodiversity-focused green infrastructure provides numerous ecological and economic
benefits including water management (Mann 2000; Mentens et al. 2006), mitigation of the
urban heat island effect (Ernst and Weigerding 1985; Von Stülpnagel et al. 1990; Bass et al.
2002), energy conservation (Takakura et al. 2000; Niachou et al. 2001) and it is also a
positive step to promoting a sustainable community capable of supporting and enhancing
biodiversity (Pickett et al. 2001; English Nature 2003; Schochat et al. 2006; Cadenasso et al.
2007; Hunter and Hunter 2008).
Green infrastructure in the built environment has traditionally been designed with limited
consideration for biodiversity or regional context. Instead, a blend of horticultural fascination
with exotic species, ease of maintenance, accessibility and an innate desire to control nature
have led to aesthetic appeal and amenity value being the key drivers for urban greenspace
design (Eisenberg 1998). Even selection of species suited to local climates has been limited
14
with arti ficial irrigation and heavy management of urban landscapes common place. This has
lead to a global homogenisation of urban biodiversity with limited diversity (McKinney, 2002;
2006).
Given the increasing recognition that the natural environment can provide goods and services
of benefit to humans and the planet (‘ecosystem services’) and that these services can
support sustainability and resilience in urban areas, the European Commission and the UK
government are now advocating well-planned green infrastructure that provides opportunities
to protect and enhance biodiversity (UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011; DEFRA
2011; HM Government 2011; Town and Country Planning Association and The Wildlife Trus ts
2012; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2012; European Commission
2013). In response to this, there is a need to develop and monitor ‘novel’, biodiversity -focused
designs for green infrastructure at roof, wall and ground-level, and investigate the contribution
they can make to urban biodiversity. The key first step to maximising the resilience and
sustainability in such a process is ensuring that design is multifunctional and is based on
regional context both in terms of being current climate and climate adaptation resilient and
relevant to regional biodiversity of local, national and international conservation value. In
order to maximise biodiversity, and the associated ecosystem services, in urban areas it is
therefore necessary to utilise biomimicry to incorporate local and regional environmental
context into the design of urban green infrastructure. This includes the incorporation of plant
diversity and habitat structure of regional conservation value.
The 'added value' of such a biodiversity-focused climate resilient approach, beyond
biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits, is that the management requirements of the
urban green infrastructure become more sustainable with reduced requirements for fossil fuel
use, artificial irrigation, and fertilizer and pesticide input.
2.3. Regional context - East Thames Corridor, UK
In the UK, the Thames Gateway, Greater London, has been designated a national priority for
urban regeneration and sustainable development. The area is also recognised under Natural
England's Natural Area designations for its distinctive and unique nature conservation value
in terms of wildli fe and natural features. In addition to statutory designation, the value of
brownfield (post-industrial) sites in the area is being increasingly recognised.
A series of brownfield sites have been found to support nationally significant populations of
numerous UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) and Red Data Book (RDB) invertebrates
(Jones 2007; Harvey 2007). Typically comprising a blend of friable substrates and pockets of
contamination, many of the Thames Gateway brownfield sites represent open flower-rich
15
resources with no management intervention that lend themselves to supporting many warmth -
loving species at the edge of their range. Such is the value of the habitat in otherwise heavily
managed urban and rural landscapes that, in the UK, the habitat typical of the highest quality
brownfield sites has been characterised and recently been included in the new list of UK
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats (Riding et al. 2010) as Open Mosaic Habitats
on Previously Developed Land.
The value of these brownfield sites is in the complexity of microhabitats within the wider
mosaic, which support species throughout their lifecycles (Bodsworth et al. 2005). In much of
the literature describing wildli fe-rich brownfield sites, open flower-rich resources, seasonal wet
areas, shelter belts of mid/late successional trees and bushes, early successional ruderal and
scrub, south facing slopes, lichen and mosses, bare ground that heats up rapidly, and blends
of friable substrates are described as essential components of the brownfield mosaic
(Bodsworth et al. 2005; Buglife 2009; Riding et al. 2010). This habitat mosaic is something
that should be aspired to through biomimicry in urban green infrastructure design if
biodiversity conservation is to be a goal in urban areas. Moreover, these brownfield sites are
under greatest pressure from Thames Gateway development (Harvey 2000). For
development in the region to be environmentally sustainable, nationally important invertebrate
populations in the region must be protected through the landscape-scale conservation of
suitable habitat. One step towards achieving this aim is the innovative incorporation of green
infrastructure into new and existing developments through urban landscape design.
2.4. Barking Riverside
Barking Riverside in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, East London (UK)
represents an opportunity for testing these urban green infrastructure design principles.
The Barking Riverside site was a 443 acre brownfield site situated in the south of the borough
sandwiched between a major trunk road that is heavily used for freight traffic and a heavily
industrialised but strategically important empl oyment area. The site was identified for its
potential for the creation of a new sustainable community comprising:
• 10,800 new units;
• 1 district centre;
• 3 schools;
• 25,000 new residents planned over the 20 year build.
In addition to the enormous potential of the site for development in line with National Planning
Policy Framework, the planning process also recognised the value of the greenfield state of
the site in terms of local ecosystem service provision, This included its value as accessible
16
greenspace for health & well -being, pluvial and fluvial stormwater management and
significant biodiversity value including numerous rare and protected species (such as water
voles, grass snakes, bumblebees and birds).
In recognition of this ecosystem service value, planning consent for the site set out a number
of conditions to ensure sustainability was interwoven in all aspects of the development. This
included:
• the development of sustainable public transport infrastructure;
• the conservation of the site's valuable biodiversity;
• the retention of 40% of the site as green space;
• the development of a comprehensive Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDs)
master plan including the use of green roofs on 40% of the properties combined with swales,
rain gardens, balancing ponds and the pre-existing creek network.
As part of the process of ensuring that sustainability was at the core of the design of the
Barking Riverside development a Knowledge Transfer Partnership was established at Barking
Riverside between Barking Riverside Ltd, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
the University of East London and Natural England to investigate how green infrastructure
design can increase the sustainability and resilience of the Barking Riverside development as
part of the TURAS FP7 programme.
It is hoped that the work that is carried out as part of TURAS at Barking Riverside will provide
practical pointers as to how the new and very diverse community can be established while
being able to accommodate the very real challenges of living alongside industry and
supporting sustainable and resilient biodiverse green infrastructure.
If the Barking Riverside development is to become a sustainable community in the heart of
the Thames Gateway (Barking Riverside 2009), there is a need to incorporate ecological
interest within residential and recreational infrastructure. Natural England's commitment to
conserve the region’s distinctive and unique wildli fe and natural features requires that the
region’s unique invertebrate assemblages, and more specifically, the brownfield habitat
features of interest supporting these populations, must be incorporated when planning
landscape design. In order to sustainably conserve these invertebrate populations, these
habitat features of interest must be incorporated into green infrastructure on a landscape
scale (Usher 1997, Bourn and Thomas 2002; Gilpin 1987, Opdam 1990, Reed 2004).
17
3. Incorporating key habitat features into landscape design
Habitat features occur at a range of differing scales within the landscape. In the sense of
Gillet & Gallandet (1996), and Rivaz-Martinez et al. (1999), these landscape components
occur as nested scales of detail from large-scale landscape features such as the Thames
Valley, to tesela based on the edaphic template, then to phytocoenosis sub-units based on
local conditions and management, to niche-specific (synusial) features representing the small-
scale micro-structure of a habitat. For many invertebrate species, it is the synusial level of
landscape detail which provides the particular niche requirements so essential for the success
of the species. For example, the 5-banded tailed digger wasp (Cerceris quinquefasciata) is
associated with small patches of bare sandy ground within a mosaic of floral nectar sources,
whereas the brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis) requires a mix of dense grass sward
and more disturbed legume-rich grassland patches. When brownfield sites are redeveloped
following traditional urban planning and landscape design principles, many of these vital
synusia are lost.
At Barking Riverside offices (TQ470822), Natural England and DF Clark Bionomique Ltd
incorporated the synusial habitat interest features characteristic of the region’s brownfield
sites into traditional office landscape design techniques. The aim of such design being to
demonstrate that it is possible to create biodiversity-focussed green infrastructure based on
aesthetically pleasing design principles within urban residential and commercial areas. If
successful, this landscape design experiment would have the potential to act as a blue-print
technique for the incorporation of regionally and nationally important conservation priority
habitat features into urban sustainable development.
In order to establish an experiment incorporating brownfield habitat features into urban
landscaping it was first necessary to identify an area of the Barking Riverside site where this
trial could be carried out over a long duration without impact from the site development. It was
decided that the area to be targeted was to the east and west of the main entrance to the
Barking Riverside site offices and around the office complex itself (Figures 3.1 & 3.2).
Once this was determined, DF Clark Bionomique Ltd landscape architects designed a series
of habitat pockets within this landscaped area containing traditional urban landscaping
features (e.g. ornamental flower beds, evergreen hedging) blended with brownfield habitat
features (e.g. south facing sand banks, metal and concrete features, scrub bands and
standing deadwood) (Figures 3.3 & 3.4). These landscape design habitat pockets were
installed during the summer and autumn 2009. Overall, the brownfield landscaping covered
an area of approximately 0.5 ha.
18
Figure 3.1. Plan of Barking Riverside site. Red circle represents the location of the area of
the brownfield landscaping trial.
Figure 3.2. Aerial photo of Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping site. The green
polygons represent the extent of the experimental landscaping. Background image © Bing
Base map. Map produced using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI).
19
Figure 3.3. Plan of Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping habitat pockets. Pockets
are located either side of the entrance road and around Barking Riverside offices. Each
pocket was designed to blend traditional landscaping with brownfield habitat interest features.
Figure 3.4. Detailed plan of main bank base and bee habitat plan. Plans designed by DF
Clark Bionomique Ltd.
20
4. Monitoring
As part of the brownfield landscaping development process, it is necessary to assess the
success of the design in terms of its conservation benefits. Such a demonstration is only
possible if the site is monitored. Monitoring differs from survey because it is characterised by
repeated visits to a locality in order to identify change from a defined state. Hellawell (1978)
has refined the concepts still further by recognising monitoring as an activity used to
recognise change resulting from a specific impact, while surveillance is repeated survey to
identify change for any reason.
In practice it is often extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify conclusive proof of cause -
and-effect in relation to a specific impact on an ecosystem, because the natural world is an
open system. An ecosystem is subject to many influences, not merely those resulting from the
impact under investigation. Thus ‘brownfield landscaping’ may lead to colonisation by
conservation priority invertebrates due to the created habitat features being able to support
these populations, but equally it may be a consequence of the more widespread environment
supporting the populations and the landscaping merely acting as a forage or nesting site but
being unable to support them in isolation. With this in mind, a monitoring programme looking
at the development and colonisation of the site is likely to differ considerably from a general
surveillance programme.
In the case of Barking Riverside office landscaping, the underlying purpose of the monitoring
exercise is closer to Hellawell’s concept of surveillance than to his definition of monitoring. It
is important to recognise this distinction in relation to the programme presented here because
the words “monitoring” and “surveillance” are used very specifically (sensu Hellawell) in some
of the guidance provided by the country conservation agencies, particularly in the various
publications produced by Countryside Council for Wales (Hurford & Perry 2000; Hurford,
Jones & Brown 2001).
The programme detailed here should be recognised as a surveillance programme rather than
a monitoring exercise, even though the term “monitoring” is used throughout the rest of this
document because it is more widely-used and is better understood at least in its broader
sense.
With these aims and constraints in mind, we will present here the outline methodology
incorporated to establish a baseline of biodiversity data for the first year of the brownfield
landscaping and subsequent repeat surveys. Subsequent monitoring was based upon this
baseline data in order to assess the development of the Barking Riverside office landscaping
over time in relation to its value in supporting regional biodiversity, with particular focus on the
niche specific features (‘synusial’ features) of importance to invertebrate populations. In doing
21
so, it is possible to quantify the biodiversity benefits of such landscaping and assess whether
management of the landscaping is effective in conserving biodiversity value in the long term
following installation.
4.1. Establishment of baseline data
A baseline survey is a one-off event because it is impossible, thirty years hence, to come
back and re-do part of the baseline which was omitted from the original programme. It is
possible to establish new baselines for new techniques or new aspects of interest, but it is
impossible to re-capture the past. There is thus a strong argument for carrying out the best
baseline monitoring programme possible within available funding.
If monitoring involves repeated survey at the same locality to determine change of a feature
over time, then monitoring requires that any detected change is a true reflection of change in
the feature, and not simply a change in the method of monitoring adopted between one date
and the next. In other words, it is necessary to be confident that 100% of detected change
results only from changes in the feature being monitored, and that none of this change results
from the monitoring methods employed.
Four key requirements arise from this condition:
that the methods used at every repeat visit are identical to those used during the
baseline survey;
that the first survey – the baseline survey – records all likely features of interest in a
way that is both repeatable and anticipates as far as possible all future likely
information needs;
that the method is sufficiently independent of the observer employed to ensure that
observer bias is minimised;
that the monitoring method does not itself induce change in the feature.
The rationale behind these factors was incorporated into the design of the baseline survey
methodology to provide information on four key habitat features:
vegetation composition;
vegetation structure;
habitat structure;
invertebrate assemblages.
22
4.2. Annual monitoring
The monitoring work consisted of two distinct components. The first component was the
fieldwork to monitor the development of target flora and colonisation of the site by
invertebrates. Fieldwork was carried out at the same time each year. This comprised a single
survey period annually at the end of July and beginning of August. This timeframe was
selected to ensure that maximum biodiversity associated with warm open brownfield sites
was present on the landscaping at the time of survey (Figure 4.2.1). These survey timings
also specifically maximised the probability of recording the UK Biodiversity Action Plan
bumblebee species the brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis), a species recorded on
the Barking Riverside site prior to development.
Figure 4.2.1. Natural England survey timing guidance. Taken from Templates for
Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Validation Checklists (Pilot draft) 2007, produced by
the Association of Local Government Ecologists.
23
The second component was the analysis and presentation of the resulting data, with a
particular focus on informing site management, identifying beneficial habitat features and
guiding practical management considerations. All of this is underpinned by scientific evidence
obtained from the monitoring work.
4.3 Three levels of monitoring
Vegetation monitoring
For a basic level of monitoring the repeatability and value of photography cannot be
surpassed. Not only does it capture a portrait of the site at a particular point in time, but this
portrait can then be examined by subsequent researchers at any point in the future for further
analysis. For this reason, the Barking Riverside office landscaping was divided into a series of
management units and each was monitored by fixed-point stereo photography. Annual
photography would provide easily interpretable surveillance of vegetative development.
Fixed points along the main track were determined from which stereo photos of vegetation
were taken (Appendix 4). Each point was marked with a permanent surveyors peg and a GPS
reading of location was taken using a GPSmap 60CSx (Garmin, Hampshire, UK). Records of
all fixed-point locations are provided in the Results section.
Once each fixed point was established, a tripod camera was positioned above the location
and orientated to best record the habitat management unit. Once orientated, the bearing of
the camera lens was recorded to ensure annual replicability. Within each stereo photo -pair
the height of a landmark -feature was recorded. Based on the height of this, a scale bar was
generated for vegetation height comparisons.
Fixed-point stereo photographs were taken:
in colour;
in stereo;
from a known point in a known direction.
Whilst not presented within this report, an archive of the stereo photograph pairs for each
fixed-point location are available in electronic format from the University of East London’s
Environmental Research Group (www.uel.ac.uk/erg). It is particularly important that the
photographs were taken in stereo. They have, for example, the advantage of giving a much
clearer picture of the vegetation height and microtopography than is possible with
monographic fixed-point recording.
24
Stereo-views involve no complex technology - merely a 35mm camera, tripod, fixed point
positions and a marker post for scale. The photos are taken using a normal digital camera,
merely moving the tripod sideways by about 5 cm between the two photos. The view of the
site from each fixed-point is selected to show the foreground vegetation. The viewpoint is
also selected to highlight areas of particular interest (e.g. vegetation boundaries, important
vegetation types, and rich mixtures of structures and vegetation).
In addition to the fixed-point photography, ground survey of vegetation was carried out. Plant
identification followed Stace (2010). Results are presented as a series of photographs of
each habitat management unit with a record of all of the higher plant species readily
distinguishable within each synusia of the landscaping within the field of view during the
baseline survey.
Invertebrate monitoring
Due to the enormous time and financial resource limitations associated with comprehensive
general surveys, invertebrate survey was targeted towards key species and groups. Within
the Barking region of the Thames Corridor, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)
invertebrate species with perhaps the highest probability of colonising and utilising the
proposed landscaping are the brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis), the shrill carder
bee (Bombus sylvarum ), the red-shanked carder bee (Bombus ruderarius) and the mining
bee (Colletes halophilus). Another potential coloniser of note in the region is the RDB3 mining
bee species Andrena florae.
Due to this potential for UKBAP bee colonisers on the site and the inclusion of bee nesting
bank habitat within the landscaping, it was decided that surveillance would be particularly
targeted at Hymenoptera. Other groups targeted with the invertebrate monitoring included
Araneae and Coeloptera. These groups were targeted for survey as they have been found to
be abundant on London brownfield sites, and are considered to be good indicators of habitat
quality (Kremen et al. 1993; Buchholz 2010; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al. 2013). Additional
invertebrates observed/recorded during surveys were identified to functional group level
unless species level identification was straightforward.
Surveying comprised fixed-time walking surveys, fixed-time sweep net surveys and pit fall
trapping. Surveys were carried out within a series of Insect Survey Areas (ISAs). These were
designed to be representative of each of the range of brownfield habitat characteristics
represented by the habitat management units. Surveys were also carried out on a
neighbouring brownfield area and, for the years 2012 & 2013, on a control area of more
traditional landscaping within a neighbouring area of the Barking Riverside development.
25
Fixed-time walking surveys - a series of fixed-timed walks were carried out encompassing the
identified habitat management units of the Barking Riverside site landscaping. Ten repeated
five minute walked-surveys were carried out within each unit. Walks comprised a modified
version of the bee walk transects used by Banaszak (1980) and Saville et al. (1997).
Modification of the method was necessary as the shape and forage distribution of each unit
was too patchy and discontinuous for single straight-line transect walks to be effective. Thus,
non-linear walks were used which covered the whole of each unit including the main flowering
patches.
Due to the observational (rather than capture) design of this standardised invertebrate
monitoring method, it was only possible to record invertebrates readily identifiable on the wing
or by rapid assessment following capture in a queen bee marking cage (Kwak 1987). Thus
identification was limited to bumblebees and butterflies (plus any other individuals easily
identifiable on the wing such as dragonflies).
Observations were made approximately 2 m either side of the observer and walking speed
was about 10 m per minute. Timed walking surveys were carried out in early August each
year. The survey dates corresponded with the peak flight periods for a range of bumblebee
species in southern England as reported by Edwards and Jenner (2005) and based on
observed peak timings from previous surveys in the region (Connop et al. 2010). In order to
standardise search conditions, all searches were conducted between 9:30 and 17:00 BST
and during warm dry weather favourable to bumblebee and butterfly activity.
By carrying out fixed-timed surveys it was possible to standardise sampling effort between the
habitat management units. This enabled comparison of invertebrate populations across the
site and assessment of the effectiveness of the landscaping and landscaping management
year-upon-year as Barking Riverside as a whole develops.
Fixed-time sweep net surveys – a 5 minute sweep net survey was carried out in each of the
Invertebrate Survey Areas. Groups targeted included Aculeates, Diptera and Syrphidae. The
standardised nature of the sweep net surveys made them replicable between each study
year.
Due to the lack of establishment of grass and clover/ flower meadow habitat areas in the first
year (2010), general sweep net surveys through established herbaceous vegetation were not
possible. Sweep net surveys were therefore targeted towards invertebrates observed, either
on the wing or resting on the ground or on flowers, that were not readily identifiable during
fixed-time walking surveys. The 2010 surveys were 15 minutes as this modification in method
26
meant that it was more difficult to collect a sample representative of the habitat pocket
assemblage.
Following surveying, identification of samples collected during sweep netting surveying was
required.
Pitfall traps – a series of pit fall traps were located in the Invertebrate Survey Areas across the
site. Five traps were located in each ISA. Pitfall traps were positioned to coincide with areas
targeted by fixed-time walking surveys and fixed-point photography. Traps were left in situ for
two weeks and were then checked and emptied. Individuals trapped were identified to
functional group level (e.g. Diptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Dermaptera, Orthroptera,
Collembola, Gastropoda and Isopoda) with the exception of the target groups of
Hymenoptera, Araneae and Coleoptera which were identified to species level.
Brownfield habitat monitoring
In addition to the habitat surveillance programme describe above, a Brownfield Habitat
Assessment Survey (Roberts et al. 2006) was carried out across the landscaped site
(Appendix 3). This was carried out concurrently with vegetation and invertebrate surveys. The
brownfield assessment survey was then reassessed annually as an additional means of
monitoring landscaping development in relation to brownfield habitat quality targets.
27
5. Results
5.1. Vegetation monitoring
5.1. 1 Synusial baseline
The vegetation monitoring baseline was carried out on the 6th
August 2010. The vegetation
monitoring baseline was started at the woodland habitat unit at the western end of the site, on
the right -hand side (entering) of the entrance (Figure 3.3).
The camera used was a Nikon D50 digital SLR with 18-55 mm lens, set on 18mm. The
camera height on top of the tripod was 1465 mm. This represented the height from ground
level to the base of the camera. For each pair of stereo photos taken, the height of a fixed
object within the view was taken. Each height was represented as a yellow and black scale
bar on the 2010 photos of each habitat unit (BR01 to BR19).
Synusia identified
Five different synusia were identified during the establishment of the vegetation monitoring
baseline. These comprised:
ground layer;
herb layer;
shrub layer;
tree layer;
non-ground level layer.
Each of these synusia are defined and classified in Figure 5.1.1.
Figure 5.1.1. Synusia identified at Barking Riverside office landscaping.
28
The following sections BR01 to BR19 each contain one of the two stereo photographs taken
at each fixed-monitoring point within the Barking Riverside office landscaping during the 2010
baseline survey. Also included is a diagrammatic representation of the distribution of the
synusia within each photograph, details of the location and bearing of each fixed-point photo
pair, and a list of the vegetation recorded for each synusia within each of the 19 key habitat
management units for the baseline survey. A diagram representing the locations of each
fixed-point marker is presented as Appendix 4.
29
BR01
30
Fixed-point data: BR01 Location: TQ 46912 82230 Camera bearing: 157.5° Scale bar: = 1.73 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer:
Planted ground flora – Snowy mermaid (Libertia formosa), Foxglove (Digitalis x
purpurascens), Primrose var. Miller’s Crimson (Primula japonica ‘Miller’s Crimson’),
Candelabra primrose (Primula bulleyana), Common ivy (Hedera helix), Lenten hellebore
(Helleborus orientalis ‘Smokey’), Stinking hellebore (Helleborus foetidus).
Colonised ground flora – Common nettle (Urtica dioica) Scented mayweed (Matricaria
recutita), Wild carrot (Daucus carota), Germander speedwell (Veronica chamaedrys),
Creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), Hoary mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).
Shrub layer:
Planted shrubs – Dog rose (Rosa canina), Common holly (Ilex aquifolia), Goat willow (Salix
caprea), Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides), Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Acer
campestre.
Tree layer:
Planted trees - Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), Field maple (Acer campestre), Deborah
Norway maple (Acer platanoides ‘Deborah’)
Non-ground level layer
On dead standing wood - Hedera helix
31
BR02
32
Fixed-point data: BR02 Location: TQ 46924 82236 Camera bearing: 173° Scale bar: = 1.70 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora: - Libertia formosa, Hedera helix, Digitalis x purpurascens,
Colonised ground flora: - Cirsium arvense, Hirschfeldia incana, Urtica dioica, White
deadnettle (Lamium album), Field bindweed (Convovulus arvensis), Daucus carota, Bristly
ox-tongue (Picris echioides ).
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs – Rosa canina, Ilex aquifolia, Salix caprea, Hippophae rhamnoides,Crataegus
monogyna, Acer campestre
Tree layer
Planted trees - Acer campestre, Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum ).
Non-ground level layer
On dead standing wood - Bracket fungus, Tree moss (Isothecium myosuroides ).
33
BR03
34
Fixed-point data: BR03 Location: TQ 46936 82239 Camera bearing: 202° Scale bar: = 1.35 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Helleborus orientalis ‘Smokey’, Libertia formosa
Colonised ground flora - Cirsium arvense, Picris echioides, Smooth sow thistle (Sonchus
oleraceous), Veronica chamaedrys, Hirschfeldia incana
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Rosa canina, Ilex aquifolia, Salix caprea, Hippophae rhamnoides, Crataegus
monogyna, Acer campestre
Tree layer
Trees - Weeping silver birch (Betula pendula ‘Tristis’)
Non-ground level layer
On dead standing wood - Lichen
35
BR04
36
Fixed-point data: BR04 Location: TQ 46936 82239 Camera bearing: 310° Scale bar: = 0.98 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Echinacea ‘Arts Pride’ (Echinacea purpurea ‘Arts Pride’), Ox-eye daisy
(Leucanthemum vulgare), Coneflower (Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’)
Colonised ground flora - Hirschfeldia incana, Matricaria recutita, Picris echioides, Sweet
clover (Melilotus officinalis), Yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Red goosefoot (Chenopodium
rubrum), White goosefoot (Chenopodium album), Ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata),
Birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium), Lesser burdock
(Arctium minus), Black nightshade (Solanum nigrum), Common knotgrass (Polygonum
aviculare), Black medick (Medicago lupulina), Annual mercury (Mercurialis annua), Common
vetch (Vicia sativa), Sainfoin (Onobrychis vicifolia)
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Lavander ‘Hidcote’ (Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’ ), Japanese barberry
(Berberis thungerbii), Hedera helix,
Colonised shrubs - Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg)
37
BR05
38
Fixed-point data: BR05 Location: TQ 46933 82240 Camera bearing: 63° Scale bar: = 1.03 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Leucanthemum vulgare
Colonised ground flora - Mercurialis annua, Calystegia sepium, Plantago lanceolata,
Chenopodium album, Black horehound (Ballota nigra), Urtica dioica, Hirschfeldia incana,
Onobrichis vicifolia, Red clover (Trifolium pratense), Spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Achillea
millefolium, Rosebay willowherb (Epilobium angustifolium), Square-stalked willowherb
(Epilobium tetragonum), Creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans)
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Ilex aquifolium, Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Common beech (Fagus
sylvatica), Hedera helix
39
BR06
40
Fixed-point data: BR06 Location: TQ 46951 82243 Camera bearing: 92° Scale bar: = 0.99 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’
Colonised ground flora - Plantago lanceolata, Mercurialis annua, Chenopodium album,
Cirsium arvense, Calystegia sepium, Lotus corniculatus, Ballota nigra, Epilobium
angustifolium, Chenopodium rubrum, Urtica dioica, Epilobium tetragonum, Narrow-leaved
ragwort (Senecio inaequidens), Potentilla reptans
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Ilex aquifolia, Fagus sylvatica
41
BR07
42
Fixed-point data: BR07 Location: TQ 46985 82214 Camera bearing: 189° Scale bar: = 2.32 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Colonised ground flora - Cirsium arvense, Hirschfeldia incana, Millet spp (Panicum
miliaceum), Urtica dioica, Matricaria recutita, Calystegia sepium, Arctium minus
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Rosa canina, Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), Salix caprea, Dogwood (Cornus
sanguinea), Fagus sylvatica, Acer campestre
43
BR08
44
Fixed-point data: BR08 Location: TQ 46985 82214 Camera bearing: 63° Scale bar: = 0.91 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Globe thistle (Echinops ritro)
Colonised ground flora - Cirsium vulgare, Chenopodium rubrum, Melilotus officinalis, Plantago
lanceolata, Medicago lupulina, Mallow (Malva sylvestris), Potentilla reptans, Lotus
corniculatus, Trifolium pratense, Onobrychis vicifolia, Mercurialis annua, Epilobium
tetragonum, Cirsium arvense
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Buddleia (Buddleia var.), Pyracantha ‘Red Column’ (Pyracantha coccinea
var. Red Column), Rosemary (Rosmarinus prostates)
45
BR09
46
Fixed-point data: BR09 Location: TQ 46990 82214 Camera bearing: 102° Scale bar: = 0.81 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Red campion (Silene dioica), Feather Grass (Stipa tenuissima),
Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’, Michaelmas daisy (Aster pyrenaeus lutetia),Russian sage
(Perovsk ia atriplicifolia), Verbena (Verbena bonariensis), Sage var. (Salvia x superba),
Round-headed rampion (Phyteuma orbiculare)
Colonised ground flora - Medicago lupulina, Hirschfeldia incana, Cirsium arvense,
Chenopodium album, Plantago lanceolata, Polygonum aviculare, Potentilla reptans, Malva
sylvestris, Chenopodium rubrum, Cirsium vulgare, Onobrychis vicifolia, Sonchus oleraceous,
Picris echioides, Epilobium tetragonum, Solanum nigrum, Narrow-leaved birds foot trefoil
(Lotus glaber), Senecio inaequidens, Achillea millefolium
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Buddleia var., Salix caprea, Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Hebe (Hebe
pinguifolia ‘Pagei ’), Gorse (Ulex europaeus)
Colonised shrubs - Rubus fruticosus agg.
47
BR10
48
Fixed-point data: BR10 Location: TQ 47002 82198 Camera bearing: 105° Scale bar: = 0.90 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Colonised ground flora - Hirschfeldia incana, Chernopodium album, Onobrychis vicifolia,
Mercurialis annua, Chenopodium album, Cirsium vulgare, Potentilla reptans, Chamaenerion
angustifolium, Lotus corniculatus, Medicago lupulina, Cirsium arvense, Ballota nigra,
Epilobium tetragonum, Borage (Borage officinalis)
Colonised ground flora (withn the planting pocket) - Cirsium arvense, Picris echioides,
Hirschfeldia incana, Common vetch (Vicia sativa), Greater plantain (Plantago major), Brassica
spp., Medicago lupulina, Lotus corniculatus, Potentilla reptans, Malva sylvestris,
Chenopodium rubrum, Matricaria recutita, Veronica chamaedrys, Plantago lanceolata,
Mercurialis annua, Achillea millefolium, Redshank (Persicaria maculosa)
Planted ground flora (withn the planting pocket) – Rockcress (Aubrieta deltoidea ‘Royal
Blue’)
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs – Buddleia var., Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’
Planted shrubs (within planting pocket) – Buddleia var, Salix caprea
49
BR11
50
Fixed-point data: BR11 Location: TQ 47013 82183 Camera bearing: 102° Scale bar: = 1.75 m
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer:
Planted ground flora – Libertia formosa, Digitalis x purpurascens, Helleborus orientalis
‘Smokey’, Helleborus foetidus , Common male fern (Dryopteris filix-mas), Ladder-to-heaven
(Polygonatum multiflorum ), Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’, Lords and ladies (Arum italicum),
Candleabra primula (Primula bulleyana), Silene dioica, Spurge (Euphorbia wulfenii)
Colonised ground flora - Chenopodium album, Solanum nigrum, Picris echioides,
Hirschfeldia incana, Matricaria chamomilla, Ballota nigra, Calystegia sepium, Sonchus
oleraceous, Purple deadnettle (Lamium purpureum ), Urtica dioica, Mercurialis annua,
Plantago lanceolata, Polygonum aviculare, Persicaria maculosa, Veronica chamaedrys, White
campion (Silene latifolia), Bladder campion (Silene vulgaris), Cow parsley (Anthriscus
sylvestris)
Shrub layer:
Planted shrubs –. Salix caprea, Buddleia var.
Colonised shrubs - Rubus fruticosus agg.
Tree layer:
Planted trees - Acer campestre, Acer platanoides ‘Deborah’, Betula pendula ‘Tristis’
Non-ground level layer
On dead standing wood – Hedera helix, Calystegia sepium, Lichen, Cirsium arvense
51
BR12
52
Fixed-point data: BR12 Location: TQ 47013 82183 Camera bearing: 201° Scale bar: = 2.13 m
Synusia identified
Herb layer
Colonised ground flora - Arctium minus, Cirsium arvense, Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), Picris
echioides, Senecio inaequidens
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Salix caprea, Acer campestre, Cornus sanguinea, Crataegus monogyna, Ilex
aquifolium, Rosa canina
Colonised shrubs - Rubus fruticosus agg.
53
BR13
54
Fixed-point data: BR13 Location: TQ 47029 82162 Camera bearing: 98° Scale bar: = 0.87 m
Synusia identified
Herb layer
Colonised ground flora – Common knapweed (Centaurea nigra), Hirschfeldia incana, Cirsium
vulgare, Chenopodium album, Mercurialis annua, Lotus corniculatus, Melilotus officinalis,
Trifolium pratense, Scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum), Vicia sativa,
Calystegia sepium, Plantago lanceolata, Hemlock (Conium maculatum), Potentilla reptans,
Malva sylvestris, Chenopodium rubrum, Cirsium arvense, Senecio jacobaea, Urtica dioica,
Solanum nigrum,
Planted ground flora – Echinacea purpurea ‘Arts Pride’, Gayfeather (Liatris spicata)
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs – Buddleia var., Salix caprea, Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’
N.B. Due to problems with the camera’s waterproof housing during the original survey, the stereo photos taken at this recording point were not of sufficient quality to be used. Thus a second visit was made to the site on the 17
th October 2010 and a second pair of stereophotos
was taken from the same location. Whilst this occurrence was unfortunate, it does demonstrate the repeatability of the method used for establishing the fixed point monitoring photos. All synusial descriptions are those recorded on the original day of the survey.
55
BR14
56
Fixed-point data: BR14 Location: TQ 47056 82129 Camera bearing: 353° Scale bar: = 0.96 m
Synusia identified
Herb layer
Colonised ground flora – Chenopodium album, Calystegia sepium, Hirschfeldia incana,
Potentilla reptans, Plantago lanceolata, Cirsium vulgare, Onobrychis vicifolia, Senecio
jacobaea, Vicia sativa, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Picris echioides, Salad burnet
(Sanguisorba minor), Mercurialis annua, Malva sylvestris, Medicago lupulina, Sonchus
oleraceous, Epilobium tetragonum,
Planted ground flora – Rudbek ia fulgida ‘Goldsturm’
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs – Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Berberis thungerbii, Fagus sylvatica,
Colonised shrubs - Rubus fruticosus agg.
57
BR15
58
Fixed-point data: BR15 Location: TQ 47056 82129 Camera bearing: 33° Scale bar: = 0.86 m
Synusia identified
Herb layer
Colonised ground flora – Cirsium arvense, Calystegia sepium, Arctium minus, Cirsium
vulgare, Tripleurospremum inodorum, Sonchus oleraceous, Urtica dioica, Hirschfeldia incana,
Common hop (Humulus lupulus),Strawberry (Fragaria vesca), Picris echioides, Potentilla
reptans, Conium maculatum, Leucanthemum vulgare, Mercurialis annua, Veronica
chamaedrys, Malva sylvestris, Persicaria maculosa
Planted ground flora – Japanese anemone (Anemone hupehensis ‘Japonica’), Echinops ritro
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs – Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’, Fagus sylvatica
Tree layer
Planted trees – Mountain Ash ‘Edulis’ (Sorbus aucuparia ‘Edulis’), Swedish whitebeam
(Sorbus intermedia)
59
BR16
60
Fixed-point data: BR16 Location: TQ 47065 82107 Camera bearing: 54° Scale bar: = 1.24 m
Synusia identified
Herb layer
Planted ground flora – Amenity turf, Digitalis x purpurascens
Colonised ground flora (Lavender patch) – Conium maculatum, Veronica chamaedrys,
Persicaria maculosa, Mercurialis annua, Calystegia sepium, Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens), Lamium album, Picris echioides, Solanum nigrum, Polygonum aviculare, Urtica
dioica
Colonised ground flora (Holly, pyracanthus and beech patch) – Ranunculus repens, Picris
echioides, Chenopodium album, Cirsium arvense, Persicaria maculosa, Daisy (Bellis
perennis), Urtica dioica, Calystegia sepium, Leucanthemum vulgare, Veronica chamaedrys,
Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale ssp.), Mercurialis annua, Sonchus oleraceous, Conium
maculatum, Polygonum aviculare
Colonised ground flora (Pyracanthus, lavender and holly patch): Groundsel (Senecio
vulgaris), Conium maculatum, Cirsium arvense, Veronica chamaedrys, Picris echioides,
Ranunculus repens, Calystegia sepium,
Shrub layer
Colonised shrubs - Butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii ),
Planted shrubs (Lavender patch) – Lavandula angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Shrubby honeysuckle
(Lonicera nitida ‘Baggensens Gold’), Hebe pinguifolia ‘Pagei’, Ilex aquifolia, Berberis
thungerbii, Fagus sylvatica, Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’, Berberis darwinii
61
BR17
62
Fixed-point data: BR17 Location: TQ 47091 82136 Camera bearing: 202° Scale bar: = 1.12 m
Synusia identified
Herb layer
Colonised ground flora – Urtica dioica, Conium maculatum, Senecio vulgaris, Picris echioides,
Cirsium vulgare, Cirsium arvense, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Veronica chamaedrys,
Spurrey (Spergula spp. ), Malva sylvestris, Calystegia sepium, Broad-leaved dock (Rumex
obtusifolium), Mercurialis annua, Hirschfeldia incana, Polygonum aviculare, Shepard’s purse
(Capsella bursa-pastoris)
Planted ground flora – Verbena bonariensis, Stipa tenuissima, Aster pyrenaeus lutetia,
Perovsk ia atriplicifolia, Bowles’ perennial wall flower (Erysimum bicolour ‘Bowles ’ ‘Mauve’)
Shrub layer
Colonised shrubs – Rubus fruticosus agg.
Tree layer
Planted trees – Betula pendula ‘Tristis’
63
BR18
64
Fixed-point data: BR18 Location: TQ 47097 82115 Camera bearing: 19° Scale bar: = 2.09 m
Synusia identified
Herb layer
Colonised ground flora – Hirschfeldia incana, Conium maculatum, Veronica chamaedrys,
Persicaria maculosa, Chenopodium album, Rumex obtusifolius, Ranunculus repens, Solanum
nigrum, Cleavers (Galium aparine), Wood-sorrel (Oxalis acetosella), Spergula spp., Urtica
dioica, Sonchus oleraceous, Calystegia sepium, Picris echioides
Planted ground flora – Erysimum bicolour ‘Bowles’ ‘Mauve’, Verbena bonariensis, Stipa
tenuissima, Aster pyrenaeus lutetia
Shrub layer
Colonised shrubs – Buddleia davidii
Planted shrubs – Rosa canina, Hebe pinguifolia ‘Pagei’, Fagus sylvatica, Lavandula
angustifolia ‘Hidcote’, Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’
65
BR19
66
Fixed-point data: BR19 Location: TQ 47106 82132 Camera bearing: 127° Scale bar: = 0.91 m
Synusia identified
Herb layer
Colonised ground flora (Pyracantha patch) – Polygonum aviculare, Hirschfeldia incana ,
Cirsium arvense, Calystegia sepium, Capsella bursa-pastoris, Mercurialis annua, Picris
echioides, Chenopodium album, Sonchus oleraceous
Colonised ground flora (Grass-slope patch): Mercurialis annua, Chenopodium album,
Leucanthemum vulgare, Picris echioides, Sonchus oleraceous, Solanum nigrum, Calystegia
sepium, Polygonum aviculare, Veronica chamaedrys, Cirsium arvense, Capsella bursa-
pastoris, Oxalis acetosella, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Conium maculatum, Silene vulgaris,
Arctium minus, Malva sylvestris, Epilobium tetragonum, Senecio vulgaris, Chenopodium
rubrum, Potentilla reptans, Plantago lanceolata
Planted ground flora – Stipa tenuissima
Shrub layer
Colonised shrubs – Rubus fruticosus agg.
Planted shrubs – Pyracantha coccinea ‘Red Column’, Berberis japonica
67
5.1. 2 Annual fixed-point photo monitoring
Fixed-point photo surveys were repeated annually to assess how vegetation and synusial
distribution developed during the monitoring period. The following section includes one of the
stereo photo pairs taken at each fixed-point during the end of July/early August in 2010, 2011,
2012, 2013.
The fixed-point photos effectively demonstrated a pattern of gradual vegetation colonisation
between the 2010 and 2013 surveys. In terms of the original target of creating brownfield-
inspired landscaping with open floristically-rich habitats, the 2011 and 2012 survey periods
appeared to be the most optimal state for the landscaping in relation to these targets. From
an aesthetic perspective, the 2011 survey period was perhaps the most optimal with amenity
grass areas cropped short and wildflower areas allowed to develop. From a biodiversity
perspective, the 2012 survey period appeared to be most optimal as it appeared to be most
floristically and structurally abundant and rich.
By the time of the 2013 fixed-point photo survey, the vegetation in the habitat pockets
appeared to be relatively overgrown in relation to the original targets. This appeared to be
indicative that the management regime being carried out on the landscaping was
inappropriate for maintaining an open flower-rich sward. Further evidence for this was
provided by the vegetation surveys.
68
BR01
2010
2011
69
2012
2013
70
BR02
2010
2011
71
2012
2013
72
BR03
2010
2011
73
2012
2013
74
BR04
2010
2011
75
2012
2013
76
BR05
2010
2011
77
2012
2013
78
BR06
2010
2011
79
2012
2013
80
BR07
2010
2011
81
2012
2013
82
BR08
2010
2011
83
2012
2013
84
BR09
2010
2011
85
2012
2013
86
BR10
2010
2011
87
2012
2013
88
BR11
2010
2011
89
2012
2013
90
BR12
2010
2011
91
2012
2013
92
BR13
2010
2011
93
2012
2013
94
BR14
2010
2011
95
2012
2013
96
BR15
2010
2011
97
2012
2013
98
BR16
2010
2011
99
2012
2013
100
BR17
2010
2011
101
2012
2013
102
BR18
2010
2011
103
2012
2013
104
BR19
2010
2011
105
2012
2013
106
5.1. 3 Ground survey of vegetation
A vegetation survey was carried out within the field of view of each of the fixed -point photos.
Due to the small size of each habitat pocket it was possible to make an inventory of all higher
plant species within each section of the landscaping. All plant species observed that were
readily identifiably (i.e. not including very young shoots) were included in the surveys.
Surveys were carried out in late July/early August annually from 2010 to 2013. Whilst it was
possible that some species of ground flora were missed if they were very scarce within a
particular survey area, the same surveying effort was used within each landscaping pocket
and between each year so that results should be directly comparable as a measure of change
in floral diversity within the landscaping.
Inventory counts give no indication of relative abundance of each floral species, so it was not
possible to assess how abundance of each species changed over time. However, a target of
the brownfield landscaping was to create open florally diverse habitat pockets suitable for a
broad variety of wildlife including pollinators. As such, relative diversity of flora is an effective
measure of how closely the landscaping was meeting original design targets and how
effective the management of the landscaping was in maintaining the open and floristically
diverse nature of the habitat pockets.
The following Figures (5.1.2 to 5.1.20) represent the pattern of number of species for planted
ground flora, colonised ground flora, planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for
each of the brownfield landscaping habitat pockets over the four year survey period since the
landscaping was established. They are therefore intended to represent an assessment of the
floral diversity of each habitat pocket over time.
Figure 5.1.2. Floral diversity in BR01, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora, planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
107
Figure 5.1.3. Floral diversity in BR02, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.4. Floral diversity in BR03, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
108
Figure 5.1.5. Floral diversity in BR04, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.6. Floral diversity in BR05, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
109
Figure 5.1.7. Floral diversity in BR06, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.8. Floral diversity in BR07, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
110
Figure 5.1.9. Floral diversity in BR08, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years sinc e the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.10. Floral diversity in BR09, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
111
Figure 5.1.11. Floral diversity in BR10, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years sinc e the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.12. Floral diversity in BR11, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
112
Figure 5.1.13. Floral diversity in BR12, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years sinc e the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.14. Floral diversity in BR13, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
113
Figure 5.1.15. Floral diversity in BR14, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years sinc e the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.16. Floral diversity in BR15, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
114
Figure 5.1.17. Floral diversity in BR16, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.18. Floral diversity in BR17, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
115
Figure 5.1.19. Floral diversity in BR18, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
Figure 5.1.20. Floral diversity in BR19, Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping. Bars
represent the counts of total floral species for planted ground flora, colonised ground flora,
planted shrubs, colonised shrubs, and planted trees for the four survey years since the
landscaping was established in autumn 2009.
116
Different floral groups demonstrated differing trends in relation to species diversity over the
four year survey period. In general, planted ground flora species numbers remained fairly
consistent throughout the survey period although there was some evidence to indicate that a
proportion of the original planted ground flora were not able to persist following the natural
colonisation of ground flora and shrubs. With a greater management input it may have been
possible to increase the rate of survival of planted ground flora, howe ver, such brownfield
landscaping is intended to be relatively low maintenance when compared to more traditional
urban soft landscaping.
With the exception of the habitat pocket BR16, (a particularly ornamental planting area within
the landscaping with large open ornamental beds) all of the habitat pockets demonstrated a
similar pattern of ground flora colonisation. This comprised an increase in species number
between the 2010 and 2011 surveys followed by a substantial decrease in diversity either
beginning with the 2012 survey or, more commonly by the time of the 2013 survey. Typically
the 2012 surveys represented the most florally diverse period for the landscaping pockets. It
thus appeared that the reduction in landscape management between the 2011-2012 period
and 2012-2013 period was too infrequent to maintain the floral diversity typical of open
mosaic habitat on previously developed land found on the Barking Riverside site prior to the
site development.
Planted shrubs appeared to fare better than the planted ground flora with all but habitat
pocket BR3 retaining all of the shrubs that were originally planted. Although low in terms of
species number, colonising shrubs were frequently recorded throughout the habitat pockets
with a general trend of increasing number over time. Typical species encountered included
Rubus fruticosus, Buddleia davidii, Sambucus ebulus, Hippophae rhamnoides and Rosa
canina. The gradual increase in colonising shrubs was another indicator that 2012 to 2013
management was ineffective in relation to maintaining an open and florally diverse habitat.
With the exception of a single horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) root stump which
was recorded as growing during the 2010 survey on BR02, all planted tree species were
consistently recorded throughout the surveys.
Whilst the overall species diversity of the landscaping habitat pockets was in decline by the
time of the 2013 surveys, average species diversity was still considerably higher than on the
soft landscaping areas within the Barking Riverside Phase 1 that were monitored as control
areas for invertebrate comparison studies (Section 5.2). Figure 5.1.21 shows the average
number of floral species in the habitat pockets of the brownfield landscaping compared to
equivalent areas of soft landscaping. Methodology for floral inventory survey of the soft
landscaped areas within the Phase 1 development was the same as that used for the
brownfield landscaping. Timing was also the same.
Floral diversity on the brownfield landscaping was substantially higher than that on the soft
landscaping. Mann-Whitney U (2-tailed) Exact tests revealed that the difference between the
average floral diversity on the brownfield landscaping pockets was significantly higher than
that on the soft landscaping areas in 2012 and 2013 (p = 0.048 and p = 0.006 respectively).
Floral diversity was also higher on the brownfield landscaping than on an equivalent area of
brownfield habitat on the Barking Riverside site that was yet to be developed. The area in
question was selected as being representative of Open Mosaic Habitat across the site as a
whole. The brownfield habitat area was surveyed as a control area for invertebrate
comparison studies. Only one habitat area was surveyed so statistical analysis was not
possible.
117
Figure 5.1.21. Average floral diversity for Barking Riverside brownfield landscaping,
soft landscaping and remaining brownfield area. Bars represent the average counts of
total floral species for each type of landscaping for 2012 and 2013. For brownfield
landscaping n = 19, for soft landscaping n = 3, and for brownfield n = 1. Area of each habitat
pocket surveyed was similar. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
In total, 115 floral species were recorded on the brownfield landscaping habitat in 2010, 133
in 2011, 148 in 2012 and 127 species in 2013. This pattern of initially increasing diversity
followed by a decline by the time of the 2013 survey was similar to the pattern recorded for
each individual habitat management unit. Nevertheless, 127 floral species in an area of 0.5 ha
of urban landscaping should still be considered to be very diverse habitat. This represents
over a third of the total number of floral species recorded on the whole of the 443 acre site
during the original 2001 Environmental Impact Assessment baseline ecological survey.
118
5.2. Invertebrate monitoring
Invertebrate monitoring was carried out using three methods:
i) Timed counts;
ii) Sweep net survey;
iii) Pitfall trapping.
5.2.1 Timed counts
Ten separate five-minute timed counts were carried out on each of six key habitat areas
selected to encompass the diversity of the brownfield landscaping management units. These
areas were termed Invertebrate Survey Areas (ISA) 1 to 6. An additional area was surveyed
within the surrounding ‘brownfield’ landscape (ISA7). The order of surveys was randomised
across the habitat units. All surveys were carried out in early August. Following a baseline
survey in 2010, surveys were repeated in 2011, 2012 and 2013. All surveys were carried out
during weather suitable for bumblebee and butterfly activity. A diagram representing the
locations of each surveyed habitat unit is displayed in Figure 5.2.1.
Figure 5.2.1. Location of timed invertebrate survey areas (ISAs): 1- woodland planting; 2-
herbaceous + shrub planting pocket; 3- sand bank; 4- woodland planting + meadow; 5-
herbaceous + shrub planting; 6- rubble and feature planting; 7- brownfield area control.
119
In 2012 an additional baseline experiment was initiated. Three control survey areas were
established within a more traditional soft landscaped area of the Barking Riverside Phase 1
development (Figure 5.2.2).
Figure 5.2.2. Plan of Barking Riverside site. Red circle represents the location of the area
of the brownfield landscaping trial. Yellow circle represents the location of the soft
landscaping survey areas.
The soft landscaping control areas were designated as ISA8, ISA9 and ISA10 (Figure 5.2.3).
All areas were within the landscaping of the Rivergate Community Centre. This area was
selected as it was a more secure area for the use of pit fall trapping techniques than other
public access areas of the development. It was also selected because of its proximity to the
brownfield landscaping experiment. Similarly to the brownfield landscaping areas, the soft
landscaping survey areas were also in close proximity to undeveloped brownfield areas of the
Barking Riverside site.
Invertebrate survey areas ISA8 and ISA9 corresponded to soft landscaped areas planted with
trees and ornamental grasses then mulched. ISA10 corresponded to an amenity grass area
with tree planting. All three were considered to be typical of soft urban landscaping. Fixed -
point photo locations were also established for the soft landscaping control areas and stereo
fixed-point photos were taken during the 2012 surveys. Photos, details of fixed-point
locations, and floral records for ISAs 8,9 and 10 are given below.
120
Figure 5.2.3. Aerial photo of the Rivergate Community Centre soft landscaping
invertebrate survey areas. The yellow polygons represent the extent of the soft landscaping
insect survey areas. Background image © Bing Base map. Map produced using ArcGIS 10.1
(ESRI).
121
Fixed-point data: ISA8 Location: TQ 46327 82271
Camera bearing: 148°
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Hart 's tongue (Asplenium scolopendrium), Ornamental grass
Colonised ground flora - Chenopodium album, Hirschfeldia incana, Senecio jacobaea,
Sonchus asper, Wood avens (Geum urbanum ), Common orache (Atriplex patula),
Chenopium rubra, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Sonchus arvensis, Butterbur (Petasites
hybridus), Epilobium tetragonum, Senecio inaquidens, Persicaria maculosa, Urtica dioica,
American willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum), Solanum nigrum, Sonchus oleraceous, Nettle-
leaved goosefoot (Chenopodiastrum murale), Calystegia sepium, Parietaria officinalis,
Cirsium arvense.
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Crataegus monogyna, Hazel (Corylus avellana), Acer campestre
Colonised shrubs - Buddleia davidii, Rubus fruticosus
Tree layer
Planted trees - Corylus avellana, Betula pendula
122
Fixed-point data: ISA9 Location: TQ 46315 82281
Camera bearing: 248°
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Ornamental grass x 2 spp
Colonised ground flora - Geum urbanum, Sonchus asper, Cirsium arvense, Epilobium
ciliatum, Hirschfeldia incana, Chenopodium rubra, Chenopodium album, Atriplex patula,
Tripleurospermum inodorum, Chenopodiastrum murale, Urtica dioica, Sonchus oleraceous,
Senecio jacobaea, Parietaria officinalis, Senecio inaequidens, Common reed (Phragmites
australis), Many-seeded goosefoot (Chenopodium polyspermum), Great willowherb
(Epilobium hirsutum).
Shrub layer
Planted shrubs - Crataegus monogyna, Corylus avellana, Acer campestre, Red currant
(Ribes rubrum)
Colonised shrubs - Buddleia davidii
Tree layer: Planted trees - Alder (Alnus glutinosa), Corylus avellana, Betula pendula, Wild
cherry (Prunus avium), Oak spp (Quercus spp)
123
Fixed-point data: ISA10 Location: TQ 46283 82293
Camera bearing: 94°
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Lolium spp, Festuca spp, Poa spp
Colonised ground flora - Brassica spp, Malva sylvestris, Picris echioides
Tree layer
Planted trees - Betula pendula, Prunus avium
On returning to the soft landscaping ISAs for the 2013 surveys, it was found that ISA8 and
ISA9 had received no management in the intervening period and thus were overgrown and
not typical of ornamental soft landscaping. As such, two new areas were designated within
the Rivergate Centre's landscaping. These were classified at ISA8a and ISA9a. The locatio n
of these can be seen on Figure 5.2.3. ISA8a was a rain garden feature comprising trees,
ornamental grasses and mulch. ISA9a was a tree-planted amenity grass area with small
ornamental grass rain gardens at either end. Images of Invertebrate Survey Areas ISA8a and
ISA9 are included below.
124
Fixed-point data: ISA8a Location: TQ 46320 82334
Camera bearing: 104°
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Soft rush (Juncus effusus), Ornamental grass x 2 spp
Colonised ground flora - Chenopodium album, Sonchus oleraceous, Taraxacum spp,
Polygonum aviculare, Senecio inaquidens, Epilobium tetragonum, Medicago lupulina, Fescue
spp, Rumex conglomeratus, Sonchus arvensis, Malva sylvestris
Tree layer
Planted trees - Betula pendula
125
Fixed-point data: ISA9a Location: TQ 46358 82345
Camera bearing: 353°
Synusia identified
Herbaceous layer
Planted ground flora - Ornamental grass
Colonised ground flora - Stellaria media, Sonchus oleraceous, Parietaria officinalis,
Chenopodium album, Picris echioides, Fescue spp, Fig-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium
ficifolium), Senecio inaequidens, Malva sylvestris, Sonchus arvensis, Plantago lanceolata,
Sonchus asper, Brassica spp, Lesser swinecress (Coronopus didymus), Chenopodium
rubrum, Picris hieracioides, Rumex spp, Epilobium tetragonum, Trifolium repens
Shrub layer
Colonised shrubs - Rubus fruticosus
Tree layer
Planted trees - Apple tree (Malus domestica var.), Pear tree (Pyrus communis var.) , Betula
pendula
126
Average timed counts
In 2010 and 2011 timed invertebrate survey walks were carried out in each of the brownfield
landscaping insect survey areas ISA1 to ISA6 and the neighbouring brownfield landscaping
area ISA7. In 2012 and 2013 these surveys were extended to also include the soft
landscaping survey areas ISAs 8 to 10.
Due to the timed observational methodology, it was only possible to record easily identifiable
species during the timed counts. At the Barking Riverside office landscaping site this
comprised almost exclusively bumblebee (Bombus) species and butterfly (Lepidoptera)
species. Comparisons of the average timed counts for bumblebees and butterflies within each
of the six key habitat areas in 2010 to 2013 are presented in Figures 5.2.4 and 5.2.5. Also
included are timed counts for the brownfield area ISA7 and soft landscaping control areas
ISA8, 9 and 10.
Figure 5.2.4. Average timed bumblebee counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA),
Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number of surveys at each
area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout each habitat area. ISAs 1 to 6
represent brownfield landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of
brownfield land. ISAs 8 to 10 represent soft landscaping areas. Error bars represent the
standard error of the mean.
127
Of the brownfield landscaped areas, substantial differences were recorded in bumblebee
timed counts dependent upon the type of habitat pocket and available flora at the time of the
surveys:
ISA 1 (a mulched woodland pocket area) - recorded no bumblebees during the 2010 survey
and then very few bumblebees during the 2011 and 2012 surveys. In 2013, substantially
higher numbers of bumble bees were recorded. This appeared to be representative of the
slow colonisation of this area with ground flora cover. However, numbers in 2013 were still
low compared to the highest numbers recorded across other ISAs.
ISA 2 (herbaceous and shrub planting pockets) - recorded very low numbers of bumblebees
in 2010 and 2011 followed by increasing numbers in 2012 and 2013. Again this appeared to
be representative of the slow colonisation of this area with ground flora cover and numbers
being low compared to the highest numbers recorded across other ISAs.
ISA 3 (sand bank, meadow planting and planting pockets) - between 2010 and 2012 this ISA
consistently recorded the highest bumblebee numbers of all of the brownfield landscaping
ISAs. Numbers were also higher than on the brownfield survey area (ISA7) for 2011 and
2012). Numbers on ISA 3 dropped considerably between the 2012 and 2013 surveys.
ISA 4 (woodland planting with wildflower meadow area) - bumblebee numbers increased
consistently from 2010 to 2012. However, by 2013, numbers had returned to levels similar to
those recorded during the 2010 baseline survey.
ISA 5 (herbaceous and shrub planting) - very low numbers in 2010 followed by a huge
increase in 2011 as the wildflower meadow area developed. Numbers dropped slightly in
2012 before declining markedly by the time of the 2013 survey.
ISA 6 (rubble and feature planting) - consistently high bumblebee numbers within this ISA due
to the abundant flowers of the ornamental landscaping and very gradual wildflower
colonisation of the rubble areas.
ISA 7 (brownfield area control) - consistently high bumblebee numbers on the brownfield
control area peaking in 2013. This indicated that declines in bumblebee numbers on other
ISAs in 2013 were not due to general bumblebee numbers being low across the Barking
Riverside site, but rather an indicator of habitat quality in relation to current management.
128
ISA 8 (tree hedge and ornamental planting soft landscaped area in 2012 changing to a
similarly landscaped ornamental grass rain garden in 2013) - bumblebee numbers were
consistently low on these areas, presumably due to the lack of suitable forage.
ISA 9 (tree hedge and ornamental planting soft landscaped area in 2012 changing to a tree,
amenity grass and small ornamental planted rain garden in 2013) - bumblebee numbers were
consistently low on these areas, presumably due to the lack of suitable forage.
ISA 10 (tree hedge and amenity grass area) - no bumblebees were recorded on this area,
presumably due to the lack of suitable forage.
Figure 5.2.5. Average timed butterfly counts at each invertebrate survey area (ISA),
Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number of surveys at each
area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout each habitat area. ISAs 1 to 6
represent brownfield landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of
brownfield land. ISAs 8 to 10 represent soft landscaping areas. Error bars represent the
standard error of the mean.
129
Consistent patterns were recorded for butterfly numbers across the brownfield landscaping
ISAs. ISAs 1 to 6 all demonstrated a year-on-year increase in average butterfly numbers
between 2010 and 2013. The only exception to this was a slight drop in numbers between
2011 and 2012 on ISA6 before increasing again in 2013. ISA2 (herbaceous and shrub
planting pockets), ISA3 (sand bank, meadow planting and planting pockets), ISA4 (woodland
planting with wildflower meadow area) and ISA5 (herbaceous and shrub planting) recorded
the highest numbers. Butterflies were particularly associated with the wildflower meadow
areas in these ISAs.
ISA 7 (brownfield area control) - consistently high butterfly numbers were recorded on the
brownfield control area peaking in 2013. There was a dip in number between 2011 and 2012,
but numbers in 2012 remained at a level higher than most of the brownfield landscaping ISAs.
ISA 8 (tree hedge and ornamental planting soft landscaped area in 2012 changing to a
similarly landscaped ornamental grass rain garden in 2013) - butterfly numbers were slightly
higher in 2013 than in 2012, but numbers remained well below levels recorded on the
brownfield landscaping ISAs.
ISA 9 (tree hedge and ornamental planting soft landscaped area in 2012 changing to a tree,
amenity grass and small ornamental planted rain garden in 2013) - butterfly numbers were
slightly higher in 2012 than in 2013. For both years numbers were below levels recorded on
the brownfield landscaping ISAs.
ISA 10 (tree hedge and amenity grass area) - no butterflies were recorded on this area
presumably due to lack of suitable habitat.
Species diversity
In addition to number of individuals, enhancing biodiversity was a key impetus for the
development of the landscaping at the Barking Riverside offices. Figures 5.2.6 and 5.2.7
represent the diversity of bumblebee and butterfly species at each of the ISAs observed
during the timed surveys.
130
Figure 5.2.6. Total number of species of bumblebee observed at each invertebrate
survey area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number
of surveys at each area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout the habitat
area. ISAs1 to 6 represent landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of
brownfield land. ISAs 8 to 10 represent soft landscaping areas. Due to the difficulty of
distinguishing the species whilst in the field, Bombus terrestris and Bombus lucorum were
recorded as the aggregated group B. terrestris/lucorum agg.
Bumblebee species diversity demonstrated similar patterns to that for average number of
individuals. ISAs1 and 2 recorded a general increase between 2010 and 2013 whilst ISAs 3,
4, and 5 showed initial increases followed by declines by the time of the 2013 surveys. The
largely ornamental planted ISA6 recorded consistently high diversity with either 4 or 5 species
recorded each year. The brownfield area ISA7 consistently recorded the highest species
diversity with only ISAs 3 and 6 recording equally high diversity.
In total, eight species of bumblebee were recorded using the brownfield landscaping: B.
terrestris/lucorum agg., B. lapidarius, B. pascuorum, B. hypnorum, B. hortorum, B. pratorum
and the UKBAP priority species B. humilis and B. sylvarum. Whilst only one B. sylvarum
individual was recorded on the landscaping (in 2012), B. humilis numbers were high
compared to other sites in the region (personal observations).
131
Bumble species diversity was substantially lower on the soft landscaping ISA survey areas.
Only one species of bumblebee was recorded on the soft landscaped ISAs, the nationally
ubiquitous generalist species group B. terrestris/lucorum agg.
Figure 5.2.7. Total number of species of butterfly observed at each invertebrate survey
area (ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number of
surveys at each area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout the habitat
area. ISAs1 to 6 represent landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of
brownfield land. ISAs 8 to 10 represent soft landscaping areas.
Butterfly species diversity demonstrated similar patterns to that for average number of
individuals with a general trend of gradually increasing diversity annually from 2010 to 2013
on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6). Highest species diversity on the brownfield
landscaping (7 species) was recorded in 2013 on ISAs 4 (woodland planting with wildflower
meadow area) and 6 (rubble and feature planting). Species diversity on the brownfield
landscaping and the brownfield survey area (ISA7) were similar although the highest diversity
of any ISA (9 species) was recorded on ISA7 in 2013.
In total 11 species of butterfly were recorded using the brownfield landscaping: meadow
brown (Maniola jurtina), painted lady (Vanessa cardui ), red admiral (Vanessa atalanta), small
white (Pieris rapae), common blue (Polyommatus icarus), gatekeeper (Pyronia tithonus ),
132
large white (Pieris brassicae), small skipper (Thymelicus sylvestris), brimstone (Gonepteryx
rhamni), peacock (Aglais io) and small tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae). The only species
recorded on the brownfield area (ISA7) not recorded on the landscaping was clouded yellow
(Colias croceus).
Butterfly species diversity was substantially lower on the soft landscaping ISA survey areas
(ISAs 8, 9 and 10). Only three species of butterfly were recorded on these areas, small white,
large white and common blue.
Mann-Whitney U analysis of timed counts
To assess whether there were significant differences between the timed counts of
bumblebees and butterflies on the brownfield landscaped area and the soft landscaping areas
of the Baking Riverside site during the 2012 and 2013 surveys, timed count data was
analysed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U exact tests (Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2). Non-
parametric analysis was used due to the small sample sizes (n = 10) involved.
Table 5.2.1 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for bumblebee counts
on the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.
Table 5.2.1. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of all bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft
landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013. Timed counts for
each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with a combined
total for all soft landscaping ISAs to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping
habitat type. For ISAs 1 to 6 n = 10 for the combined soft landscaping ISAs n = 30. p values in
red represent those that were significantly different at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Soft landscaping (ISAs 8, 9 and 10)
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d
lan
dsc
apin
g
ISA 1 p = 0.082 N/S p < 0.001 ISA 1
ISA 2 p = 0.003 ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA 2
ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA 3
ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA 4
ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA 5
ISA 6 p < 0.001 ISA 6 p < 0.001 ISA 6
133
Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there was a significantly greater number of
bumblebees on each of the brownfield habitat inspired landscaping ISAs than the soft
landscaping ISAs in 2013. This was also true for the 2012 bumblebee survey with the
exception of one of the brownfield landscaping ISA (ISA1). ISA1 (a mulched woodland pocket
area) appeared to be one of the slower landscaping pockets to colonise and this lack of
available forage is likely to explain the lack of a significant difference in 2012.
Table 5.2.2 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for bumblebee counts
on the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.
Table 5.2.2. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of all butterflies on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft
landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013. Timed counts for
each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with a combined
total for all soft landscaping ISAs to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping
habitat type. For ISAs 1 to 6 n = 10 for the combined soft landscaping ISAs n = 30. p values in
red represent those that were significantly different at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Soft landscaping (ISAs 8, 9 and 10)
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d
lan
dsc
apin
g
ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA1 p < 0.001 ISA1
ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA2 p < 0.001 ISA2
ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p < 0.001 ISA3
ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA4 p < 0.001 ISA4
ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA5 p < 0.001 ISA5
ISA 6 p = 0.296 N/S p = 0.001 ISA6
Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there was also a significantly greater number of
butterflies on each of the brownfield habitat inspired landscaping ISAs than the soft
landscaping ISAs in 2013. This was also true for the 2012 bumblebee survey with the
exception of one of the brownfield landscaping ISA (ISA6). ISA6 (rubble and feature planting)
was one of the more open landscaping pockets with the rubble aggregate colonising slowly.
Butterfly numbers appeared to correlate with the development of grassy swards so it is not
unexpected that ISA6 would have lower butterfly numbers than other brownfield landscaping
ISAs.
134
To assess whether there were significant differences between the diversity of species
recorded during timed counts of bumblebees and butterflies on the brownfield landscaped
area and the soft landscaping areas of the Baking Riverside site during the 2012 and 2013
surveys, timed count data was analysed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U exact tests
(Tables 5.2.3 and 5.2.4). Non-parametric analysis was used due to the small sample sizes (n
= 10) involved.
Table 5.2.3 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for bumblebee diversity
on the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.
Table 5.2.3. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of bumblebee diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft
landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013. Timed counts for
each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with a combined
total for all soft landscaping ISAs to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping
habitat type. For ISAs 1 to 6 n = 10 for the combined soft landscaping ISAs n = 30. p values in
red represent those that were significantly different at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Soft landscaping (ISAs 8, 9 and 10)
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d
lan
dsc
apin
g
ISA 1 p = 0.148 N/S p < 0.001 ISA1
ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA2 p < 0.001 ISA2
ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p < 0.001 ISA3
ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA4 p < 0.001 ISA4
ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA5 p < 0.001 ISA5
ISA 6 p < 0.001 ISA6 p < 0.001 ISA6
Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there was also a significant difference in terms of
the diversity of bumblebee species recorded on the brownfield landscaping and the soft
landscaping. Significantly greater bumblebee species diversity was recorded on the
brownfield landscaping than the soft landscaping for all ISAs in 2013 and for all but one ISA
in 2012. The only ISA that was not significantly greater was ISA1 for which no significant
difference was recorded. As discussed previously, this may have been due to ISA1 being
slow to colonise with non-planted flora.
Table 5.2.4 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for butterfly diversity on
the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.
135
Table 5.2.4. Mann-Whitney U exact tests asse ssing the difference between the timed
counts of butterfly diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the soft
landscaping ISAs (8 to 10) at Barking Riverside, August 2012 and 2013. Timed counts for
each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with a combined
total for all soft landscaping ISAs to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping
habitat type. For ISAs 1 to 6 n = 10 for the combined soft landscaping ISAs n = 30. p values in
red represent those that were significantly different at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Soft landscaping (ISAs 8, 9 and 10)
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d
lan
dsc
apin
g
ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA1 p < 0.001 ISA1
ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA2 p < 0.001 ISA2
ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p < 0.001 ISA3
ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA4 p < 0.001 ISA4
ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA5 p < 0.001 ISA5
ISA 6 p = 0.246 N/S p = 0.001 ISA6
Similarly to bumblebee diversity, Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there was also a
significant difference in terms of the diversity of butterfly species recorded on the brownfield
landscaping and the soft landscaping. Significantly greater butterfly species diversity was
recorded on the brownfield landscaping than the soft landscaping for all ISAs in 2013 and for
all but one ISA in 2012. The only ISA that was not significantly greater was again ISA1 for
which no significant difference was recorded.
An additional assessment was made to investigate how the brownfield landscaping compared
with a typical brownfield area on the Barking Riverside site. Timed count data for 2010, 2011,
2012 and 2013 was analysed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U exact tests (Tables
5.2.5 and 5.2.6). Non-parametric analysis was used due to the small sample sizes (n = 10)
involved.
Table 5.2.5 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for bumblebee counts
on the brownfield landscaping areas and brownfield area.
136
Table 5.2.5. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of all bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the
brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Timed counts for each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared
with the brownfield habitat ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping
habitat type. For all ISAs n = 10 . Significance was assessed at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Brownfield habitat survey area (ISA7)
2010 2011
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d la
nd
scap
ing
ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7
ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7
ISA 3 p = 0.014 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA3
ISA 4 p = 0.002 ISA7 p = 0.690 N/S
ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA5
ISA 6 p = 0.381 N/S p < 0.001 ISA6
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA7 p = 0.001 ISA7
ISA 2 p = 0.02 ISA7 p = 0.001 ISA7
ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p = 0.006 ISA7
ISA 4 p = 0.069 N/S p < 0.001 ISA7
ISA 5 p = 0.038 ISA5 p < 0.001 ISA7
ISA 6 p = 0.516 N/S p = 0.302 N/S
Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed a changing pattern of significance between the
brownfield habitat ISAs (ISA1 to 6) and the brownfield area (ISA7) over time. During the
baseline survey in 2010, significantly greater bumblebee numbers were recorded on the
brownfield habitat area of the Barking Riverside site than the brownfield landscaping pockets
ISAs1 to 5. The only exception to this was the rubble and ornamental planted ISA6 for which
no significant difference was recorded. This was presumably due to some of the ornamentals
planted in this area being particularly attractive as a nectar source for bumblebees. On ISAs 1
to 6 the vegetation was not well developed in 2010 (as can be seen in the fixed-point photos),
which would explain the low bumblebee counts.
In 2011, after an additional year of vegetation development, only ISAs 1 and 2 recorded
significantly lower bumblebee numbers than the brownfield habitat. ISA4 recorded no
137
significant difference, and ISAs 3, 5 and 6 recorded numbers significantly higher than the
neighbouring brownfield habitat.
A similar pattern was also observed in 2012 with ISAs 1 and 2 recording significantly lower
bumblebee numbers than the brownfield habitat, ISAs 4 and 6 recording no significant
difference, and ISAs 3 and 5 recording numbers significant ly higher. By 2013 this pattern had
again reverted back to one similar to the baseline survey with ISAs 1 to 5 all recording
significantly lower bumblebee numbers than the brownfield habitat. ISA6 was the only ISA to
differ from this pattern with no significant difference recorded in the bumblebee numbers
between the brownfield habitat and the brownfield landscaping.
These results indicated that floral availability for foraging bumblebees on the brownfield
landscaping was at its most optimal in 2011 and 2012 but by the time of the 2013 surveys
management was too infrequent to maintain an open flower-rich sward typical of brownfield
open mosaic habitat.
Table 5.2.6 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for butterfly counts on
the brownfield landscaping areas and brownfield area.
Table 5.2.6. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of all butterflies on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the brownfield
habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Timed counts for
each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with the
brownfield habitat ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping habitat type.
For all ISAs n = 10 . Significance was assessed at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Brownfield habitat survey area (ISA7)
2010 2011
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d la
nd
scap
ing ISA 1 p = 0.015 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7
ISA 2 p = 0.013 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7
ISA 3 p = 0.004 ISA7 p = 0.045 ISA7
ISA 4 p = 0.168 N/S p = 0.099 N/S
ISA 5 p = 0.004 ISA7 p = 0.049 ISA7
ISA 6 p = 0.003 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7
138
Brownfield survey area (ISA7)
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d la
nd
scap
ing ISA 1 p = 0.277 N/S p = 0.002 ISA7
ISA 2 p = 0.010 ISA2 p = 0.809 N/S
ISA 3 p = 0.087 N/S p = 0.381 N/S
ISA 4 p = 0.002 ISA4 p = 0.149 N/S
ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA5 p = 0.867 N/S
ISA 6 p = 0.001 ISA6 p = 0.002 ISA7
Similarly to bumblebee abundance, Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed a changing pattern
of significance between the brownfield landscaping ISAs (ISA1 to 6) and the brownfield
habitat (ISA7) over time for butterfly numbers. For the first two years of survey, the brownfield
habitat recorded significantly higher butterfly numbers than the brownfield landscaping areas
with the exception of ISA4 (woodland planting with wildflower meadow area) for which no
significant difference was recorded.
By the time of the 2012 survey this pattern had reversed, with significantly greater numbers of
butterflies recorded on all but two of the brownfield landscaping ISAs than the brownfield
habitat. The exceptions to this were ISAs 1 and 3 for which there were no significant
differences in butterfly numbers with the brownfield habitat. In 2013, another shift in pattern
emerged with all but two of the brownfield habitat ISAs showing no significant difference in
butterfly numbers to the brownfield habitat. The two exceptions to this were ISAs 1 and 6
which recorded significantly fewer butterflies than the brownfield habitat. Overall, this
indicated that the landscaping may have been in an optimal state for butterflies at the time of
the 2012 survey and that by 2013 management was too infrequent to maintain an open sward
typical of the brownfield habitat.
To assess whether there were significant differences between the diversity of species
recorded during timed counts of bumblebees and butterflies on the brownfield landscaped
area and the brownfield habitat during the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 surveys, timed count
data was analysed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U exact tests (Tables 5.2.7 and
5.2.8). Non-parametric analysis was used due to the small sample sizes (n = 10) involved.
Table 5.2.7 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for bumblebee diversity
on the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.
139
Table 5.2.7. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of bumblebee diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the
brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Timed counts for each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared
with the brownfield habitat ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield la ndscaping
habitat type. For all ISAs n = 10 . Significance was assessed at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Brownfield habitat survey area (ISA7)
2010 2011
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d la
nd
scap
ing
ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7
ISA 2 p < 0.001 ISA7 p < 0.001 ISA7
ISA 3 p = 0.022 ISA7 p = 0.007 ISA3
ISA 4 p = 0.004 ISA7 p = 1.000 N/S
ISA 5 p < 0.001 ISA7 p = 0.083 N/S
ISA 6 p = 0.875 N/S p = 0.019 ISA7
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
ISA 1 p < 0.001 ISA7 p = 0.450 N/S
ISA 2 p = 0.047 ISA7 p = 0.235 N/S
ISA 3 p = 0.016 ISA3 p = 0.039 ISA7
ISA 4 p = 0.700 N/S p = 0.066 N/S
ISA 5 p = 0.738 N/S p = 0.363 N/S
ISA 6 p = 0.066 N/S p = 0.067 N/S
Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed that bumblebee species diversity has normalised
between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield habitat area (ISA7) over the
duration of the surveys. In 2010 all but ISA 6 recorded significantly lower bumblebe e diversity
than the brownfield habitat area. ISA6 recorded no significant difference. In 2011, only four of
the ISAs recorded significantly lower bumblebee diversity than the brownfield habitat area.
ISAs 4 and 5 recorded no significant difference. In 2012, three of the brownfield landscaping
ISAs (4, 5 and 6) recorded no significant difference in bumblebee diversity to the brownfield
habitat and ISA3 recorded a significantly greater diversity of bumblebee species. In 2013 only
one brownfield landscaping ISA (ISA3) recorded a significantly lower bumblebee species
diversity than the brownfield habitat area. All other ISAs recorded no significant difference.
140
Table 5.2.8 represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U exact tests for butterfly diversity on
the brownfield landscaping areas and soft landscaping areas.
Table 5.2.8. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of butterfly diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) with the
brownfield habitat ISA (7) at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Timed counts for each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared
with the brownfield habitat ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping
habitat type. For all ISAs n = 10 . Significance was assessed at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Brownfield habitat survey area (ISA7)
2010 2011
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d la
nd
scap
ing
ISA 1 p = 0.076 N/S p = 0.056 N/S
ISA 2 p = 0.538 N/S p = 0.036 ISA7
ISA 3 p = 0.155 N/S p = 0.133 N/S
ISA 4 p = 0.076 N/S p = 1.000 N/S
ISA 5 p = 0.079 N/S p = 0.392 N/S ISA 6
p = 0.030 ISA7 p = 0.003 ISA7
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
ISA 1 p = 0.193 N/S p = 0.001 ISA7 ISA 2
p = 0.120 N/S p = 0.330 N/S ISA 3 p = 0.875 N/S p = 0.468 N/S ISA 4 p = 0.059 N/S p = 0.553 N/S ISA 5 p = 0.706 N/S p = 0.005 ISA7 ISA 6
p = 0.001 ISA7 p = 0.018 ISA7
Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed little difference between the butterfly species diversity
in the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield habitat ISA. For the years 2010, 2011
and 2012 the diversity counts on the majority of the brownfield landscaping ISAs were not
significantly different from the brownfield habitat ISA. The exceptions to this being ISA 6 in
2010, 2011 and 2012 and ISA 2 in 2011. During the 2013 surveys, ISAs 1, 5 and 6 were all
recorded as having significantly lower butterfly species diversity than ISA7. The other ISAs
were all recorded as being not significantly different.
141
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
Summary of vegetation use
In addition to number and diversity of bumblebees and butterflies visiting each survey area, a
record was made of the behaviour of each individual at the time of observation. These
records were used to generate a proportional picture of flower use within each habitat type for
each year of the surveys. Figures 5.2.8 to 5.2.11 represent the results for bumblebees:
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.8. Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield
habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010. Observations recorded during 5 minute
timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield landscaping (i) n =
128 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 74.
142
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.9. Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield
habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011. Observations recorded during 5 minute
timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield landscaping (i) n =
343 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 36.
143
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
iii)
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.10. Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping
ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012. Observations
recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the
brownfield landscaping (i) n = 355, for the soft landscaping (ii) n = 38, and for the brownfield
habitat (iii) n = 54.
144
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
iii)
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.11. Bumblebee floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping
ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Observations
recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the
brownfield landscaping (i) n = 299 sightings, for the soft landscaping (ii) n = 12, and for the
brownfield habitat (iii) n = 106.
145
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
Figures 5.2.12 to 5.2.15 represent the results for butterflies:
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.12. Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield
habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010. Observations recorded during 5 minute
timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield landscaping (i) n =
99 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 67.
146
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.13. Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and brownfield
habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011. Observations recorded during 5 minute
timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield landscaping (i) n =
60 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 10.
147
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
iii)
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.14. Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping
ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012. Observations
recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the
brownfield landscaping (i) n = 329, for the soft landscaping (ii) n = 21, and for the brownfield
habitat (iii) n = 36.
148
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
iii)
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.15. Butterfly floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft landscaping
ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Observations
recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the
brownfield landscaping (i) n = 579 sightings, for the soft landscaping (ii) n = 22, and for the
brownfield habitat (iii) n = 111.
149
Although certain floral species seemed to dominate preferences, overall, bumblebee and
butterflies were recorded using a broad range of floral species. With no specific measure of
relative abundance of floral within the study, it was impossible to prove that observed floral
visits were not relative to floral species abundance. However, both bumblebees and
butterflies were observed by surveyors actively avoiding certain available flowers in
preference for other species. There are also numerous studies that demonstrate that
bumblebees and butterflies actively choose to visit certain floral species over other available
species to maximise the reward on their foraging visits ((Ranta and Lundberg 1980, Williams
1989, Goulson and Darvill 2004, Ellis 2006, Goulson and Cory 2008, Hanley et al., 2008,
Goulson et al. 2009, Connop et al. 2010, Yurtsever et al. 2010). As such, proportion of floral
visits recorded in Figures 5.2.8 to 5.2.11 are taken as being representative of the relative
choices of foraging bumblebees and butterflies on the Barking Riverside site.
In terms of bumblebee forage use, during the landscaping establishment phase bumblebees
appeared to be very dependent upon ornamental planting species such as Erysimum bicolour
and Verbena bonariensis. Hirschfeldia incana was the only non-planted species that made up
a substantial proportion of all recorded foraging visits. By 2011, this pattern had reversed and
native wildflowers dominated the floral visits on the brownfield landscaping, particularly
Fabaceae species such as Trifolium pratense and Lotus corniculatus. This change in pattern
appeared to coincide with the development of the wildflower meadow areas (as can be seen
in the fixed point photos). Nevertheless, the planted ornamentals Erysimum bicolor,
Lavandula angustifolia and Verbena bonariensis still comprised approximately a quarter of all
observed bumblebee forage visits. Similarly to the brownfield landscaping, a Fabaceae
(Galega officinalis) comprised the most bumblebee visits on the brownfield area of the site.
In 2012 a similar pattern was observed with Trifolium pratense and Lotus corniculatus
comprising the majority of observed floral visits. The proportion of visits to ornamentals had
reduced. Comparing this to the observed floral visits on the soft landscaped area revealed a
substantial contrast with no bumblebees being recorded as foraging on the soft landscaping
area. All bumblebees recorded were observed in flight. A similar pattern was observed in
2013 with all bumblebees on ISA 8 to 10 recorded as either in flight or resting on ornamental
grasses. None were recorded foraging on the soft landscaped areas. On the brownfield
landscaping areas the proportion of visits to ornamental planted species had increased again,
but wildflower species, particularly Lotus corniculatus, remained as the most commonly
visited floral species.
In terms of butterfly observations, butterflies were much more commonly seen not actively
foraging with the majority of observations on the brownfield landscaping, brownfield habitat
and soft landscaping being individuals in flight for all four survey years. Of the butterflies
recorded on plants (whether resting or actively foraging), the majority of those visited were
150
native wildflowers. Visits to planted ornamentals comprised very few of the observed visits
with Buddleia davidii the largest proportion of non-wildflower visits on the brownfield
landscaping in 2010. The only other ornamentals recorded as visited were Lavandula
angustifolia, Verbena bonariensis, Rosmarinus prostates and Rosa arvensis.
In terms of wildflowers, again the Fabaceae were the most frequently visited group with Lotus
corniculatus and Medicago lupulina most commonly visited on the brownfield landscaping
ISAs and Galega officinalis on the brownfield area. Other notable wildflowers for butterfly
visits include Hirschfeldia incana and Leucanthemum vulgare on both the brownfield
landscaping and the brownfield area.
UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species
From the timed surveys, two conservation priority bumblebee species were recorded, the
brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis) and the shrill carder bee (Bombus sylvarum) .
Only one observation of Bombus sylvarum was recorded. In contrast, Bombus humilis was a
regular visitor to the brownfield landscaping and, due to its specific forage requirements
(Connop et al. 2010), it should be viewed as a good indicator of habitat quality for
bumblebees across the site. As such, average timed counts (Figure 5.2.16) and detailed
analysis of annual forage use (Figures 5.2.17 to 5.2.20) by B. humilis were carried out.
Figure 5.2.16. Average timed Bombus humilis counts at each invertebrate survey area
(ISA), Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010 to 2013. Number of surveys at
each area = 10. Each survey comprised a 5 minute walk throughout each habitat area. ISA1
to ISA6 represent brownfield landscaped habitat areas. ISA7 represents an adjacent area of
brownfield land. No B. humilis were recorded on the soft landscaped areas (ISA 8 to 10).
Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
151
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.17. Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and
brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010. Observations recorded during
5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield
landscaping (i) n = 19 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 3.
152
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.18. Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs and
brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2011. Observations recorded during
5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). For the brownfield
landscaping (i) n = 145 and for the brownfield habitat (ii) n = 2.
153
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.19. Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft
landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2012.
Observations recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA).
For the brownfield landscaping (i) n = 189 sightings and for the brownfield habitat (iii) n = 12.
No observations of B. humilis were recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs 8 to 10.
154
= ornamental planting
= colonised or from wildflower seeding
= no vegetation- based observations
ii)
i)
Figure 5.2.20. Bombus humilis floral use on brownfield landscaping ISAs, soft
landscaping ISAs and brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2013.
Observations recorded during 5 minute timed counts for each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA).
For the brownfield landscaping (i) n = 40 sightings and for the brownfield habitat (iii) n = 2. No
observations were recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs 8 to 10.
155
Average timed counts of B. humilis individuals demonstrated that ISAs 3, 4 and 5 recorded
the highest numbers during the 2011 and 2012 surveys. Numbers were considerably lower on
these ISAs during 2010 and 2013 indicating that habitat quality was not optimal during these
survey periods. Numbers on these ISAs were consistently higher than on the brownfield
survey area ISA7. Mann-Whitney U exact test were used to assess whether there was a
significant difference in the timed B. humilis counts between the brownfield landscaping and
brownfield areas (Table 5.2.9).
Table 5.2.9. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the timed
counts of Bombus humilis individuals on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with the
brownfield habitat ISA at Barking Riverside, August 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Timed
counts for each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) were compared with
the brownfield landscaping ISA to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping
habitat type. For all ISAs n = 10 . Significance was assessed at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
Brownfield survey area (ISA7)
2010 2011
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d la
nd
scap
ing
ISA 1 p = 0.211 N/S p = 0.211 N/S
ISA 2 p = 0.211 N/S p = 0.211 N/S
ISA 3 p = 0.211 N/S p < 0.001 ISA3
ISA 4 p = 0.100 N/S p = 0.006 ISA4
ISA 5 p = 0.582 N/S p < 0.001 ISA5
ISA 6 p = 0.005 ISA6 p = 0.861 N/S
2012 2013
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
ISA 1 p = 0.017 ISA7 p = 0.474 N/S ISA 2
p = 0.146 N/S p = 0.512 N/S ISA 3 p < 0.001 ISA3 p = 0.721 N/S ISA 4 p < 0.001 ISA4 p = 0.197 N/S ISA 5 p = 0.004 ISA5 p = 0.350 N/S ISA 6
p = 0.131 N/S p = 0.008 ISA5
Mann-Whitney U exact tests indicated that there were significantly greater B. humilis numbers
on ISAs 3, 4 and 5 than on the brownfield habitat area ISA7 in 2011 and 2012. The brownfield
habitat (ISA7) only recorded significantly greater B. humilis numbers than the brownfield
156
landscaping for a single ISA (ISA1) in 2012. This demonstrated the quality of the brownfield
landscaping as a forage resource for this conservation priority bumblebee species. In stark
contrast to this, no B. humilis individuals were recorded on any of the soft landscaping ISAs.
In 2010 and 2013 ISA6 also recorded significantly higher B. humilis numbers than ISA7. The
relatively high numbers of B. humilis recorded on ISA6 were most likely due to the occurrence
of the ornamental species Lavandula angustifolia, Perovsk ia atriplicifolia and Verbena
bonariensis planted in this ISA. Interestingly, the abundance of B. humilis in ISA6 in 2010
and 2013 was the opposite pattern to ISAs 3, 4 and 5. This was perhaps indicative of B.
humilis individuals using the ornamentals of ISA6 to a greater extent when wildflower forage
availability was poor in ISAs 3, 4 and5.
Forage preference data (Figures 5.2.17 to 5.2.20) supports this theory as, during 2011 and
2012 the majority of B. humilis forage visits were recorded on wildflowers, Lotus corniculatus
and Trifolium pratense comprising the majority of these visits. Planted ornamentals comprised
a very low proportion of the forage visits for these two survey years. In contrast, ornamentals
comprised all of the recorded visits in 2010 and more than a third in 2013 when floral
availability was poor in the wildflower meadow areas of ISA 3, 4 and 5.
In the brownfield area another Fabaceae species, Galega officinalis, was recorded receiving
the majority of visits in 2011 and 2012. Additional species included Hirshfeldia incana, Ballota
nigra, Arctium minus and Cirsium arvense.
157
5.2.2 Sweep net surveys
A five minute sweep net survey was carried out within each of the invertebrate survey areas
(with the exception of the 2010 survey when 15 minute sweeps were carried out due to the
lack of established vegetation). Individuals caught were stored and returned to the laboratory
for identification. Individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus
other easily identifiable individuals were identified to species level. Where individuals from
these groups were present as juveniles or were particularly difficult to identify, they were
identified to a higher group level (e.g. genus, family or order). An overview of results is
presented here and full details are presented in Appendix 1:
2010
In total, 16 species were recorded during the timed sweep net surveys. Of these, two species
(Andrena dorsata and Eristalis intricarius) were only recorded on the brownfield control area.
The additional 4 species recorded on the control area were also recorded on the brownfield
landscaped areas along with 10 other species only recorded on the landscaped areas.
Species recorded varied between invertebrate survey areas, with survey areas 1, 4 and
control area 7 recording the highest numbers. Interestingly, landscaped survey areas 1 and 4
are the woodland landscaped areas, neither of which scored highly on the butterfly and
bumblebee timed counts. This indicated that the habitat variation incorporated into the
brownfield landscaping design may be having a beneficial effect on overall site biodiversity.
Of most interest from the sweep net surveys was the record of the solitary bee Andrena
nigriceps on the woodland landscaped area of ISA1. This was only the third modern record of
this bee in Essex and the first from the East Thames Corridor.
2011
In total 52 species were recorded during the timed sweep net surveys. Of these, seven
species (Anthocoris nemorum, Hippodamia variegate, Lasioglossum morio, Philanthus
triangulum, Reichertella geniculata, Sitona lineatus, Tiso vagans) were only recorded on the
brownfield control area. The additional 6 species recorded on the control area were also
recorded on the landscaped areas along with 39 other species only recorded on the
landscaped areas. Of the 52 species recorded, only one was previously recorded in the 2010
sweep net surveys. Whilst this represents a substantial net increase in the number of species
recorded during the sweep net surveys since 2010, it also means that 15 species recorded in
2010 were not recorded in 2011 including the rare record of the solitary bee Andrena
nigriceps.
158
Total number of species recorded varied between invertebrate survey areas, ISA1 recorded
the highest with 14 species and ISA 5 recorded the lowest with 7 species. Interestingly,
species recorded varied considerably between ISAs. This indicated that the habitat variation
incorporated into the brownfield landscaping design may be having a beneficial effect on
overall site biodiversity.
Of most interest from the sweep net surveys were the records of several species of
conservation concern. This included one RDB2 species (Philanthus triangulum - although this
species is becoming increasingly widespread and its status may need re -assessing), two
RDB3 species (Lasioglossum pauperatum, Lygus pratensis), four notable species and
thirteen local species (one of which was also an Essex Red Data species - Melitta leporina).
2012
In 2012, sweep net surveys were increased to include the soft landscaping control areas ISA
8, 9 and 10. In total 35 species were recorded during the sweep net surveys. Of these, three
were only recorded on the brownfield control area (Agalenatea redii, Rhagonycha fulva,
Sphenella marginata). The additional four species recorded on the brownfield control area
were also recorded on the brownfield landscaping along with 27 other species that were not
recorded on the brownfield control area. Of most interest in terms of the species recorded in
the brownfield landscaping sweep net surveys were one RDB2 species (Philanthus
triangulum - although this species is becoming increasingly widespread and its status may
need re-assessing) and 11 species of local conservation status.
Only six species were recorded on the soft landscaped areas. Four of these species were
also recorded on the brownfield landscaping and two were only recorded on soft landscapi ng.
Of these two, one was a species of local conservation status.
2013
For the 2013 surveys the methodology was changed so that, rather than one 5 minute sweep,
five timed sweeps of a minute each were used within each ISA in order to get a more
comparative record of invertebrate populations within the vegetation layer and to enable
statistical comparison. In addition, ISAs 8 and 9 were replaced with ISAs 8a and 9a as lack of
management in ISAs 8 and 9 meant that they were no longer typical of urban soft landscaping
(see Section 5.2.1).
In total, 114 species were identified to species level. Of these, one RDB3 species
(Lasioglossum pauperatum), one Notable/Na species (Lasioglossum pauxillum ), two
159
Notable/Nb species (Hippodamia variegata and Lasioglossum malachurum) and one
Notable/Nr species (Brachymeria minuta) were recorded on the brownfield landscaping. Of
these, only L. pauperatum and H. variegata were also recorded on the brownfield habitat and
only H. variegata was also recorded on the soft landscaping. RDB3 species Lasioglossum
morio was also recorded, but only on the brownfield habitat.
In addition, eleven locally distributed individuals were recorded on the brownfield landscaping.
Of these, three were also recorded on the brownfield habitat and only two were recorded on
the soft landscaping. Andrena flavipes was the only local species recorded on the brownfield
habitat that was not also recorded on the brownfield landscaping. The locally distributed
Anisosticta novemdecimpunctata was the only conservation interest species that was
recorded in the soft landscaping sweep net samples that was not also recorded on the
brownfield landscaping. In contrast, ten of the species of conservation importance recorded
on brownfield landscaping areas were not recorded on the brownfield habitat or soft
landscaping ISAs.
Invertebrate group diversity
Due to the standardised sampling effort between ISAs for the sweep net surveys, it was
possible to make direct comparisons between the invertebrate diversity supported within each
brownfield landscaping ISA, the brownfield habitat ISA and the soft landscaping ISAs. As only
target groups were identified to species level, invertebrate diversity comparisons were made
at a higher taxonomic grouping level. These groups comprised taxonomic orders and/or
higher functional taxanomic groups (Acari, Araneae, Coleoptera, Dermaptera, Diptera,
Gastropoda, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Opiliones, Orthoptera,
Psocoptera, Thysanoptera). Results for 2012 and 2013 are presented in Figures 5.2.21 and
5.2.22.
In the 2012 sweep net samples, with the exception of ISA6 (the rubble and ornamental
planting area), all brownfield landscaping ISAs were as diverse or more diverse than the
brownfield habitat area in terms of the number of invertebrate groups recorded. The same
was also true when the brownfield landscaping ISAs were compared to the soft landscaping
areas. Mann-Whitney U exact tests were carried out to assess whether there was a significant
difference between the invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping and the soft
landscaping. No significant difference was recorded for the 2012 data.
160
Figure 5.2.21. Invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside sweep net samples,
2012. Graph represents the number of invertebrate groups collected in a single five minute
sweep net sample on each invertebrate survey area (ISA). ISAs 1 to 6 represent the
brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs 8 to 10
represent the soft landscaping areas.
Figure 5.2.22. Invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside sweep net samples,
2013. Graph represents the average number of invertebrate groups collected in five sweep
net samples of one minute each on each invertebrate survey area (ISA). ISAs 1 to 6
represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs
8 to 10 represent the soft landscaping areas. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
161
In the 2013 sweep net samples, when repeated samples were taken in each ISA, all of the
brownfield landscaping ISAs recorded an average invertebrate group diversity equivalent to or
greater than the brownfield habitat ISA. The brownfield landscaping ISAs all recorded a
higher average invertebrate group diversity greater than the soft landscaping ISAs. Mann-
Whitney U exact tests revealed no significant difference between the brownfield landscaping
ISAs and the brownfield habitat. In contrast, Mann-Whitney U exact tests revealed a
significant difference between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the soft landscaping ISAs
(p < 0.001) in terms of average diversity.
More detailed analysis was carried out at the species level for the target groups Araneae,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera. These groups were selected as they are considered to be
good indicators of habitat quality and key representatives of vegetation-dwelling invertebrate
diversity. Figure 5.2.23 shows the total number of species from each of the target groups
recorded in the sweep net samples.
Figure 5.2.23. Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species
identified in the sweep net samples at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Graph
represents the total number of species from within each target group and a cumulative total
for the sweep net samples from within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). ISAs 1 to 6
represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs
8a, 9a and10 represent the soft landscaping areas.
162
Highest combined numbers of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species were recorded
on the brownfield landscaping ISAs 2 and 5. The lowest were recorded on the soft
landscaping ISAs 8a, 9a and 10. Numbers were so low on the soft landscaping areas that
sweep net surveys on ISA 10 recorded no Araneae or Coleoptera species at all
Mann-Whitney U exact tests were carried out to assess whether there was a significant
difference between the target group species number between the sweep net samples on the
brownfield landscaping ISAs (1 to 6) and on the soft landscaping ISAs (8a, 9a and 10). No
significant difference was recorded for Araneae (p = 0.095), nor for Coleoptera (p = 0.19), but
there was found to be a significantly greater number of Hymenoptera species in the
brownfield landscaping sweep nets than those on the soft landscaping (p = 0.012). Similarly,
when Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species numbers were combined there were
significantly fewer species recorded on the soft landscaping than the brownfield landscaping
(p = 0.024).
In addition to species number of target groups in sweep net samples, rarity scores were
calculated for the conservation priority Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species caught
during the sweep net sampling in each ISA. Rarity scores were based on values used in
Natural England's Invertebrate Species-Habitat Information System (ISIS). Originally
developed for Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) for Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI), ISIS can be used to recognise invertebrate assemblage types in species lists and
evaluate their nature conservation value (Lott, 2007; Drake et al., 2007). The scoring system
assigned during ISIS analysis assigns a score for each conservation priority species
dependent upon conservation status. Scores for each species comprise: RDB1+ Extinct =
16pts; RDB2 = 16pts; RDB3 = 8pts; Notable/Na = 4pts; Notable/Nb = 4pts; and Local = 2pts.
Figure 5.2.24 represents the rarity score totals for each ISA.
Rarity scores are intended to be a proportional measure of the conservation value of
invertebrate assemblages in relation to national conservation priorities. In relation to the
Barking Riverside landscaping sweep nets, the soft landscaping ISAs (8a, 9a and 10)
recorded the lowest rarity scores. Highest species rarity score were recorded on the
brownfield landscaping ISAs 2, 3 and 5 and on the brownfield habitat ISA 7. Rarity scores on
all brownfield landscaping ISAs were higher than those on the soft landscaping ISAs.
163
Figure 5.2.24. Total rarity scores for conservation priority Araneae, Coleoptera and
Hymenoptera species identified in the sweep net samples at Barking Riverside, August
2013. Graph represents the total species rarity scores for all conservation priority species
within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) using Natural England's ISIS invertebrate
assemblage assessment programme. Scores are a cumulative total for species recorded in
the five sweep net samples within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). ISAs 1 to 6 represent
the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs 8a, 9a
and10 represent the soft landscaping areas.
5.2.3 Pitfall trapping
In 2010 and 2011, pitfall traps were placed in a series of locations throughout the brownfield
landscaping and brownfield habitat invertebrate survey areas (ISAs) (Figure 5.2.25). Traps
were installed in June each year and were regularly emptied. Traps were left in situ until the
end of September. Traps were emptied and the invertebrates contained within were identified
and counted. Similarly to the sweep net surveys, individuals from target groups Araneae,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus other easily identifiable individuals were identified to
species level. Where individuals from these target groups were present as juveniles or were
particularly difficult to identify, they were identified to a higher group level (e.g. genus, family
or order).
As only target groups were identified to species level, other invertebrates found in traps were
catalogued at a higher taxonomic grouping level. These groups comprised taxonomic orders
and/or higher functional taxanomic groups (Acari, Araneae, Chilopoda, Coleoptera,
164
Collembola, Dermaptera, Diplopoda, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera,
Isopoda, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Oligochaeta, Orthoptera, Pseudoscorpionida, Psocoptera,
Symphlyla, Thysanoptera).
Due to losses of the large pit fall traps utilised in the 2010 and 2011 surveys, five small pitfall
traps were installed in each of the invertebrate survey areas for the 2012 and 2013 pit fall
surveys. Replication of smaller traps was used to mitigate trap loss by increasing the chances
that some traps would survive in each ISA. Such replication also made advanced statistical
analysis of results possible. In addition to ISAs 1 to 7, pitfall traps were also installed in the
soft landscaping control areas of the Barking Riverside development ISAs 8 to 10 (Figure
5.2.3). This was to enable comparison of the brownfield landscaping epigeal invertebr ate
diversity with that on more typical soft landscaping areas. Surveying was also targeted within
a two week window, at the end of July and beginning of August, to coincide with the other
survey methodologies on the landscaping.
Figure 5.2.25. Location of pitfall traps at Barking Riverside Office Landscaping: Traps
were located within the previously defined invertebrate survey areas (ISA1 - Woodland
planting; ISA 2- Herbaceous + shrub planting pocket; ISA 3- Sand bank; ISA 4- Woodland
planting; ISA 5- Herbaceous + Shrub planting; ISA 6- Rubble and feature planting; ISA 7-
Brownfield area control) plus an additional trap (ISA X – Grass + herbaceous near offices) was
located next to the offices and a green roof experiment area.
X
165
2010
Conservation priority species
A complete list of records from the 2010 pitfall traps is displayed in Table A2.1 (Appendix 2).
Unfortunately, two of the traps were lost due to repeated disturbance [ISA4 – woodland and
ISA7 – brownfield]. It was unclear as to why these were disturbed, but it was likely that it was
due to fox activity. No data was therefore available for these areas.
From the traps that were not disturbed, a series of key species of conservation concern were
identified from within the target groups identified to species level. Of the 23 spider species
identified, one was a proposed nationally notable (pNa) species (Zodarion italicum ), one was
a species of local importance (Agroeca inopina) and one was a currently undescribed species
found on several occasions within the southeast (Megalepthyphantes sp. nova.).
Of the 25 beetle species identified, 1 was a Red Data Book 2 (RDB2) species (Polistichus
connexus ), 4 were nationally scarce (Nb) species (Brachinus crepitans (Essex RDB),
Calathus ambiguus (Essex RDB), Harpalus ardosiacus and Notiophilus quadripunctatus
(Essex RDB)), 4 were very local species (Amara convexiuscula, Amara eurynota, Calathus
cinctus and Helophorus rufipes ) and 2 were local species (Calthus erratus and Phyllotreta
consobrina).
Invertebrate group diversity
In additional to the species level identification, counts of invertebrate taxonomic groups within
each ISA pit fall were carried out. Figure 5.2.26 shows the total number of individuals recorded
in each survey area.
The sand bank area recorded the highest number of individuals of all of the survey areas,
substantially so when compared to the woodland and herbaceous areas ISA1 and ISA2. A
similar pattern could be seen when analysing the invertebrate diversity data (Figure 5.2.27).
The rubble (ISA6) , sand (ISA3) and herbaceous (ISA5) areas recorded a substantially higher
diversity of invertebrate groups than the other traps. The highest diversity being eight
invertebrate groups (Collembola, Hemiptera, Diptera, Araneae, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera,
Isopoda and Pulmonata) recorded in the ISA5 herbaceous trap. The woodland (ISA1) and
herbaceous (ISA2) areas recorded the lowest diversity of invertebrate groups.
166
Figure 5.2.26. Total number of invertebrates caught in pitfall traps, Barking Riverside
office landscaping, August 2010. Pitfall traps were positioned within each survey area for
the same duration to standardise sampling effort.
Figure 5.2.27. Total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each pitfall trap,
Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010. Number of orders/groups recorded in
each trap was used as an indicator of invertebrate diversity within each habitat unit. Pitfall
traps were positioned within each survey area for the same duration to standardise sampling
effort.
167
Target group diversity
The limited scope of this monitoring programme meant that it was not possible to identify all
invertebrates within the traps to species level. However, Araneae and Coleoptera individuals
were identified to this level. These target groups were selected as they are considered to be
good indicators of habitat quality and the frequency of capture of these two groups within the
pitfall traps was considered to be a good representation of overall ground dwelling
invertebrate biodiversity at the site. In total, 25 species of beetle and 23 species of spider
were recorded from all of the traps collectively.
In contrast to the overall invertebrate totals, the woodland area recorded the highest number
and diversity of spiders (Figures 5.2.28 and 5.2.29). Herbaceous area ISA2 also scored much
more highly for beetle and spider numbers and diversity than for all invertebrates when
compared to the other survey areas. Beetle diversity and number was highest on the sandy
area ISA3. The differentiation between areas and species groups highlighted the importance
of the habitat heterogeneity throughout the office landscape design.
Figure 5.2.28. Number of Coleoptera and Araneae individuals recorded in each pitfall
trap, Barking Riverside office landscaping, August2010. A single large pitfall trap was
placed in each of the brownfield landscaping pockets.
168
Figure 5.2.29. Number of Coleoptera and Araneae species recorded in each pitfall trap,
Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2010.
2011
Conservation priority species
A complete list of records from the 2011 pitfall traps is displayed in Table A2.2 (Appendix 2).
Unfortunately three of the traps were lost due to repeated disturbance [ISA2 – herbaceous
scrub, ISA5 – herbaceous and scrub and ISA7 - brownfield habitat]. It was unclear as to why
these were disturbed, but it was likely that it was due to landscape management. No data was
therefore available for these areas.
From the traps that were not disturbed, a series of key species of conservation concern were
identified from within the target groups identified to species level. The limited scope of this
monitoring programme meant that it was not possible to identify all invertebrates within the
traps to species level. In order to get a more comprehensive overview of the species present
at the site, Hymenoptera individuals were identified to add to the Coleoptera and Araneae
identifications in 2010. Of the 7 Hymenoptera species identified, none were identified as being
of conservation importance. However, a single species captured in a pit fall trap on an
169
additional area (ISAX - see Figure 5.2.25) of the brownfield landscaping was Nb/RDB
Listed/Essex threatened (Priocnemis gracilis).
Invertebrate group diversity
In additional to the species level identification, counts of all invertebrates and invertebrate
groups within each ISA pitfall were carried out. Figure 5.2.30 shows the total number of
individuals recorded in each survey area.
The woodland area ISA4 recorded the highest number of individuals of all of the survey areas
for which pitfall traps were collected. substantially so when compared to the other woodland
area ISA1. As in the 2010 survey, numbers on the sand bank ISA3 were also high. A similar
pattern was observed when analysing the invertebrate diversity data (Figure 5.2.31). ISAs3, 4
and 6 recorded the highest diversity of invertebrate groups, substantially higher diversity than
ISA1. This included ten invertebrate groups (Collembola, Hemiptera, Diptera, Araneae,
Opiliones, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Isopoda and Gastropoda). Similarly to 2010, of the
pitfall traps collected in 2011, the woodland area (ISA1) recorded the lowest diversity of
invertebrate groups.
Figure 5.2.30. Total number of invertebrates caught in pitfall traps, Barking Rive rside
office landscaping, August 2011. Pitfall traps were positioned within each survey area for
the same duration to standardise sampling effort.
170
Figure 5.2.31. Total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each pitfall trap,
Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011. Number of orders/groups recorded in
each trap was used as an indicator of invertebrate diversity within each habitat unit. Pitfall
traps were positioned within each survey area for the same duration to standardise sampling
effort.
Target group diversity
In addition to overall invertebrate biodiversity, comparison was made of target groups
considered to be good indicators of habitat quality and key representatives of ground dwelling
invertebrate biodiversity. For this, the groups Coleoptera and Araneae were selected. Total
number of individuals in each trap was calculated (Figure 5.2.32).
In contrast to the overall invertebrate totals, the woodland area (ISA1) recorded relative high
numbers of Araneae and Coleoptera in relation to the other ISAs. As in the previous year,
Coleoptera numbers were significantly higher in the sandy area (ISA3) than other ISAs but,
perhaps surprisingly, no Araneae were caught in this area making it the worst for spiders. It
appeared therefore that, even after a second year of vegetation development on the Barking
Riverside landscaping and thus a more comprehensive ground cover across all ISAs, habitat
heterogeneity in terms of brownfield landscape design was still supporting differentiation in
terms of species groups.
171
Figure 5.2.32. Number of Coleoptera and Araneae species recorded in each pitfall trap,
Barking Riverside office landscaping, August 2011. Pitfall traps were positioned within
each survey area for the same duration to standardise sampling effort.
2012
Conservation priority species
A complete list of records from the 2012 pitfall traps is displayed in section A2.3 (Appendix 2).
Unfortunately, one pit fall trap was lost from ISA5 and ten were lost from the soft landscaping
areas ISAs 8, 9 and 10. It was unclear as to why the pitfall trap from ISA5 was lost, but the
pitfall traps from the soft landscaping ISAs were either removed by foxes or during landscape
management. Due to the large proportion of lost pitfall traps from these areas, it was
necessary to combine the data for all of the recovered soft landscaping pit fall traps to create
one general soft landscaping ISA with five replicate pitfall traps as representative of soft
landscaping at the Barking Riverside site.
In terms of conservation priority species, on the brownfield landscaping one RDB1 (+ Extinct)
species was recorded (Scybalicus oblonguisculus - considered by coleopterists to be extinct
in the UK until a single specimen was found by P.R. Harvey at West Canvey in 2002 and
172
West Thurrock PFA Lagoons in 2005), one RDB2 species (Philanthus triangulum - this
species is becoming increasingly widespread and its status may need re -assessing), one
RDB3 species (Lasioglossum pauperatum ), one Notable/Na species (Sphecodes longulus),
nine Notable Nb species (all of which were also Essex Red Data Book species), and 30
species of local nature conservation concern. On average there were 11.5 species of
conservation importance in each brownfield landscaping ISA. On the brownfield habitat ISA,
11 species of conservation concern were recorded. This included the RDB1 and RDB3
species recorded on the brownfield landscaping, a Notable/Na species ( Lasioglossum
pauxillum ) not recorded on the landscaping, four Notable/Nb spcecies (of which one was not
recorded on the landscaping - Trachyzelotes pedestris), and four local species (of which three
were not recorded on the landscaping - Platydracus stercorarius, Formica cunicularia and
Hoplitis spinulosa).
In comparison, on the soft landscaping ISA (8 to 10), only 4 species of conservation concern
were recorded. This comprised one Notable/Nb species that was also recorded on the
brownfield landscaping and three local species (of which two were only recorded on the soft
landscaping - Oedothorax apicatus and Pelecopsis parallela).
Invertebrate group diversity
In additional to the species level identification, counts of invertebrate groups within each ISA
pitfall were carried out. Figure 5.2.33 shows the average number of invertebrate groups
recorded in each survey area.
Invertebrate groups recorded in pit fall traps comprised Acari, Araneae, Chilopoda,
Coleoptera, Collembola, Dermaptera, Diplopoda, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera,
Hymenoptera, Isopoda, Lepidoptera, Oligochaeta, Orthoptera, Symphyla, Thysanaura.
Highest average invertebrate group diversity was recorded on the sand bank brownfield
landscaping area (ISA3). Lowest average diversity was recorded on the combined soft
landscaping area (ISAs 8 to 10). Overall brownfield landscaping invertebrate group diversity
was approximately equal to or greater than the diversity recorded on the brownfield habitat
area and was consistently greater than that recorded on the soft landscaping area.
Mann-Whitney U exact tests were carried out to assess whether there was a significant
difference between the invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping and the
brownfield habitat and the soft landscaping areas. Results are presented in Table 5.2.10.
173
Figure 5.2.33. Average invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside pitfall
samples, 2012. Graph represents the average number of invertebrate groups collected in
each of five pit fall traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exception to this
was ISA 5 where one pit fall trap was lost. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to collection.
ISAs 1 to 6 represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield
habitat and ISA 8-10 represent a combined 5 pitfall traps from the soft landscaping areas ISA
8, 9 and 10. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
Results of the Mann-Whitney U Exact tests indicated that there was no significant difference
between the brownfield landscaping and brownfield habitat ISAs in terms of invertebrate
group diversity (at the p ≤ 0.05 confidence level). There was, however, a significant difference
between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and soft landscaping ISAs for all but ISAs 1 and 6.
For the ISAs for which a significant difference was recorded, there was significantly greater
invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs.
174
Table 5.2.10. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the pitfall
trap invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with brownfield
habitat and the soft landscaping ISAs at Barking Riverside, August 2012. Pitfall trap
counts, representing the total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each of five pitfall
traps in each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA), were compared with an
equivalent number for the brownfield habitat ISA and the combined soft landscaping ISAs (8,
9 and 10) to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping habitat type. For ISA 5,
one pit fall trap was lost. p values in red represent those that were significantly different at a p
≤ 0.05 significance level.
ISA 7 (brownfield habitat) ISA8-10 (soft landscaping)
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d la
nd
scap
ing ISA 1 p = 0.881 N/S p = 0.056 N/S
ISA 2 p = 0.540 N/S p = 0.016 ISA 2
ISA 3 p = 0.079 N/S p = 0.008 ISA 3
ISA 4 p = 0.270 N/S p = 0.008 ISA 4
ISA 5 p = 0.214 N/S p = 0.016 ISA 5
ISA 6 p = 0.794 N/S p = 0.056 N/S
Target group diversity
In addition to overall invertebrate group biodiversity, comparison was made of specific groups
considered to be good indicators of habitat quality and key representatives of ground dwelling
invertebrate diversity.
For this analysis, the groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera were selected.
Individuals from these groups were, where possible, identified to species level. Figure 5.2.34
represents the total number of species of each of these three groups recorded within the
pitfall traps of each of the brownfield landscaping areas (ISAs 1 to 6) the brownfield habitat
area (ISA7) and the five combined traps from the soft landscaping areas (ISA 8 -10).
The highest total numbers of species were recorded in ISAs 2 and 3, with the lowest being
recorded in ISAs 1, 6, and ISA8-10. These were the only areas with no wildflower meadow
habitat included within the ISA pockets. The majority of species from the three target
invertebrate groups recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs were Araneae species. This was
not typical for any of the other ISAs with Araneae comprising less than 50% of the species
recorded for all of the other ISAs and typically closer to 30%. Proportions of the three target
invertebrate groups differed substantially between ISAs.
175
Figure 5.2.34. Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species
identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2012. Graph represents the
total number of species from within each target group and a cumulative total for the five pi tfall
traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exception to this was ISA 5 where
one pit fall trap was lost. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to collection. ISAs 1 to 6
represent the brownfield landscaping areas, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat, and ISA
8-10 represents a combined 5 pit fall traps from the soft landscaping areas ISA 8, 9 and 10.
In addition to number of species, rarity scores were calculated for the pit fall trap species from
the three target groups. Rarity scores were based on values used in Natural England's
Invertebrate Species - Habitat Information System (see 2012 sweep net results for further
details). Scores for each conservation priority species comprise: RDB1+ Extinct = 16pts;
RDB2 = 16pts; RDB3 = 8pts; Notable/Na = 4pts; Notable/Nb = 4pts; Nr = 2pts; and Local =
2pts. Figure 5.2.35 represents the rarity score totals for each ISA.
Again the sand bank brownfield landscaping area ISA3 was the highest performing ISA with
a substantially higher rarity score than any other ISA. Second highest rarity scores were
recorded for ISA 2 (the herbaceous and shrub planting pocket) and the brownfield habitat
area (ISA7). Lowest scoring were the most ornamental of the brownfield habitat pockets (ISA
6 - rubble and feature planting) and the soft landscaping area (ISA 8-10).
176
Figure 5.2.35. Species rarity scores for Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species
identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2012. Graph represents the
total species rarity scores for all conservation priority species within each Invertebrate Survey
Area (ISA) using Natural England's ISIS invertebrate assemblage assessment programme.
Scores are a cumulative total for species recorded in the five pitfall traps within each
Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exception to this was ISA 5 where one pitfall trap
was lost. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to collection. ISAs 1 to 6 represent the
brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the brownfield habitat and ISA 8-10 represents
a combined 5 pit fall traps from the soft landscaping areas ISA 8, 9 and 10.
2013
Conservation priority species
A complete list of records from the 2013 pitfall traps is displayed in section A2.4 (Appendix 2).
Unfortunately, one pit fall trap was lost from ISA3 and one was lost from the soft landscaping
area 10. It was unclear as to why these pit fall traps were lost but they were most likely lost to
foxes or during landscape management.
In terms of conservation priority species, on the brownfield landscaping the RDB1 (+ Extinct)
species recorded in the previous year (Scybalicus oblonguisculus) was again recorded. In
addition, one RDB2 species (Polistichus connexus), one RDB3 species (Lasioglossum
pauperatum ), one Notable/Na species (Lasioglossum pauxillum ), seven Notable Nb species
(all of which were also Essex Red Data Book species), one Nr species (Brachymeria minuta)
177
and 20 species of local nature conservation concern were recorded. This represented a
reduction in the number of Nb and local species compared to the previous year's pitfall
survey. On average there were 10.8 species of conservation importance in each brownfield
landscaping ISA. This also represented a slight decrease compared to the previous year
(down from 11.5).
On the brownfield habitat ISA, 13 species of conservation concern were recorded, this was
more than were recorded in 2012. This included the RDB3 species and Notable/Na species
recorded on the brownfield landscaping (Lasioglossum pauperatum and Lasioglossum
pauxillum ), three Notable/Nb spcecies (of which one was not recorded on the landscaping -
Lasioglossum malachurus), and eight local species, all of which were also recorded on the
brownfield landscaping.
In comparison, on the soft landscaping ISAs 8a, 9a and 10, 7 species of conservation
concern were recorded. These comprised three Notable/Nb species, one of which was only
recorded on the soft landscaping (Andrena pilipes sens. Str.), and four local species (of which
three were only recorded on the soft landscaping - Oedothorax apicatus Calathus cinctus
Myrmecina graminicola). Of particular interest was that all of these species were recorded
from ISA9, an area with greating habitat variability than the other soft landscaping ISA with
amenity grass, fruit trees and a rain garden all within the single ISA. Overall the average for
the soft landscaping ISAs was 3.3 species of conservation importance.
Invertebrate group diversity
In additional to the species level identification, counts of all invertebrates and invertebrate
groups within each ISA pitfall were carried out. Figure 5.2.36 shows the average number of
invertebrate groups recorded in each survey area.
Invertebrate groups recorded in pit fall traps comprised Acari, Araneae, Chilopoda,
Coleoptera, Collembola, Dermaptera, Diplopoda, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera,
Hymenoptera, Isopoda, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Oligochaeta, Orthoptera,
Pseudoscorpionida, Psocoptera, Thysanoptera Highest average invertebrate group diversities
were recorded on the brownfield landscaping ISAs 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the brownfield habitat
ISA 7. Lowest average diversities were recorded on the most ornamental brownfield
landscaping ISA 6 and the soft landscaping ISAs 8 to 10. Overall, with the exception of ISA 6,
brownfield landscaping invertebrate group diversity was approximately equal to or greater
than diversity recorded on the brownfield habitat area and was greater than that recorded on
the soft landscaping areas. Values were typically higher than those recorded in 2012.
178
Figure 5.2.36. Average invertebrate group diversity in Barking Riverside pitfall
samples, 2013. Graph represents the average number of invertebrate groups collected in
each of five pit fall traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exceptions to
this were ISAs 3 and 10 where one pitfall trap was lost in each ISA. Traps were in place for 2
weeks prior to collection. ISAs 1 to 6 represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7
represents the brownfield habitat and ISAs 8 to10 represent the soft landscaping areas. Error
bars represent standard error of the mean.
Mann-Whitney U exact tests were carried out to assess whether there was a significant
difference between the invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping and the
diversity on the brownfield habitat and the soft landscaping areas. Results are presented in
Table 5.2.11.
Results of Mann-Whitney U Exact tests indicated that there was no significant difference in
terms of invertebrate group diversity between the brownfield landscaping habitat and all of
brownfield landscaping ISAs with the exception of ISA 6 (at the p ≤ 0.05 confidence level).
ISA6 was the rubble and ornamental planting brownfield landscaping area and was the most
ornamental of the brownfield landscaping areas. Similarly to the 2012 results, t here was a
significant difference between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and soft landscaping ISAs for
all but ISAs 1 and 6. For the ISAs for which a significant difference was recorded, there was
significantly greater invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs.
179
Table 5.2.11. Mann-Whitney U exact tests assessing the difference between the pitfall
trap invertebrate group diversity on the brownfield landscaping ISAs with brownfield
habitat and the soft landscaping ISAs at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Pitfall trap
counts, representing the total number of invertebrate groups recorded in each of five pitfall
traps in each brownfield landscaping Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA), were compared with an
equivalent number for the brownfield habitat ISA and the combined soft landscaping ISAs (8,
9 and 10) to assess the performance of each brownfield landscaping habitat type. For ISAs 3
and 10, one pitfall trap was lost in each ISA. p values in red represent those that were
significantly different at a p ≤ 0.05 significance level.
ISA 7 (brownfield habitat) ISA8-10 (soft landscaping)
p Direction of significance p Direction of significance
Bro
wn
fiel
d
lan
dsc
apin
g
ISA 1 p = 0.341 N/S p = 0.134 N/S
ISA 2 p = 0.119 N/S p = 0.001 ISA2
ISA 3 p = 0.667 N/S p = 0.007 ISA3
ISA 4 p = 0.278 N/S p = 0.001 ISA4
ISA 5 p = 0.762 N/S p = 0.003 ISA5
ISA 6 p = 0.024 ISA7 p = 0.496 N/S
Target group diversity
In addition to overall invertebrate group biodiversity, comparison was made of specific groups
considered to be good indicators of habitat quality and key representatives of ground dwelling
invertebrate diversity. Similarly to 2012, the groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera
were selected.
Individuals from these groups were, where possible identified to species level. Figure 5.2.37
represents the total number of species of these three groups recorded within the pit fall traps
of each of the brownfield landscaping areas (ISAs 1 to 6) the brownfield landscaping area
(ISA7) and the soft landscaping areas (ISA 8a, 9a and10).
180
Figure 5.2.37. Total number of Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera species
identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Graph represents the
total number of species from within each target group and a cumulative total for the five pi tfall
traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exceptions to this were ISAs 3 and
10 where one pitfall trap was lost from each. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to
collection. ISAs 1 to 6 represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the
brownfield habitat and ISAs 8a, 9a and10 represent the soft landscaping areas.
Despite a pit fall trap being lost, ISA 3 recorded the highest combined Araneae, Coleoptera
and Hymenoptera species diversity equal to the diversity recorded on the brownfield habitat
area ISA7. This high score for ISA 3 replicated that recorded in 2012. ISAs 1, 2 and 5 also
recorded high diversities for these groups. Diversity on the soft landscaping was low in
comparison to the majority of brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield habitat ISA.
This was particularly the case for Hymenoptera, with few recorded in any of the traps within
the soft landscaping. This contrasted sharply with ISA 7 which recorded by far the greatest
Hymenoptera species diversity. The most ornamental brownfield landscaping ISA (ISA 6)
recorded similar levels of species diversity of the target groups to the soft landscaping ISAs.
Rarity scores were also calculated for the pitfall trap species from the three target groups.
Rarity scores were based on values used in Natural England's Invertebrate Species-Habitat
Information System (see sweep net results for further details). Scores for each species
comprise: RDB1+ Extinct = 16pts; RDB2 = 16pts; RDB3 = 8pts; Notable/Na = 4pts;
Notable/Nb = 4pts; Nr = 2pts; and Local = 2pts. Figure 5.2.38 represents the rarity score
totals for each ISA.
181
Figure 5.2.38. Total species rarity scores for Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera
species identified in the pitfall traps at Barking Riverside, August 2013. Graph
represents the total species rarity scores for all conservation priority species within each
Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA) using Natural England's ISIS invertebrate assemblage
assessment programme. Scores are a cumulative total for species recorded in the five pitfall
traps within each Invertebrate Survey Area (ISA). The only exceptions to this were ISAs 3 and
10 where one pitfall trap was lost from each ISA. Traps were in place for 2 weeks prior to
collection. ISAs 1 to 6 represent the brownfield landscaping area, ISA 7 represents the
brownfield habitat and ISAs 8a, 9a and 10 represent the soft landscaping.
Similarly to 2012, the sand bank brownfield landscaping area (ISA3) was a very high scoring
ISA for invertebrate rarity. This was particularly interesting as one of the pitfalls was lost in
this area and so rarity totals were based on only four pitfall traps. Highest score was recorded
on ISA 5. All but ISA6 of the brownfield landscaping ISAs had rarity scores similar to or
greater than the brownfield habitat ISA (ISA7). ISA 6 and the soft landscaping ISA rarity
scores were the lowest recorded. ISA9a was the only soft landscaping ISA to score greater
than 10. As mentioned previously, this area of the soft landscaping was more diverse in terms
of habitat features than the other two soft landscaping ISAs.
182
5.3. Brownfield habitat monitoring
In addition to the targeted vegetation and invertebrate surveys, brownfield habitat quality
assessment surveys were carried out based on a methodology developed by Buglife - the
Invertebrate Conservation Trust (Roberts et al. 2006).
Complete results from the 2010 brownfield habitat assessment baseline survey can be found
in Appendix 3. The survey identified that, even in the first year of development, the landscape
management at Barking Riverside offices created many habitat characteristics considered to
be of specific value on East Thames Corridor brownfield sites of national conservation
importance. The survey also revealed that the landscaping contained several negative
features associated with poorer quality brownfield sites, such as an abundance of buddleia.
The brownfield assessment surveys were repeated in subsequent years to assess how the
balance between good and poor quality brownfield habitat features developed on site. This is
particularly important in relation to designing management plans for the site as this was, to
the best of the authors' knowledge, the first time brownfield landscaping had been trialled.
Thus, no experience of management existed. Moreover, habitat management is a process
‘alien’ to the majority of brownfield sites in the region upon which natural disturbance, drought
and stress are the main driving forces impacting habitat development.
The following is a summary of changes recorded in the brownfield assessment surveys
between years:
2011
The survey identified that in the second year of development, the landscape management at
Barking Riverside offices continued to include habitat characteristics considered to be of
specific value on East Thames Corridor brownfield sites of national conservation importance.
As in the previous year, however, the survey also revealed that the landscaping contained
several negative features associated with poorer quality brownfield sites, such as an
abundance of buddleia.
Overall, the assessment demonstrated that the balance between good and poor quality
brownfield habitat features had improved between the first and second year surveys. This
was particularly due to vegetation changes on the landscaping. This included:
an increase in tall herbs;
an increase in flower diversity and abundance;
the presence of new key indicator species (crane-bills, fleabanes, sorrels, thistles,
toadflax, weld or mignonette, wormwood);
183
an increase in legumes (from ‘present’ to ‘abundant’).
The only habitat features to record poorer performance in 2011 when compared to the 2010
baseline were a decrease in the presence of bare ground and in the presence of sparse
vegetation. Both of these key habitat features were still recorded on site however despite their
reduction.
2012
Target brownfield habitat characteristics were again present on the landscaping in addition to
some negative features associated with poor brownfield sites.
Overall, the assessment demonstrated that the balance between good and poor quality
brownfield habitat features had continued to improve between the second and third year
surveys. This was particularly due to vegetation changes on the landscaping due to the lack
of management on the amenity grass areas and ornamental beds. This included:
an increase in tall herbs;
an increase in flower abundance on unmanaged amenity grass areas and
colonisation of ornamental beds;
an increase in overall floral diversity;
persistence of new key indicator species (crane-bills, fleabanes, sorrels, thistles,
toadflax, weld or mignonette, wormwood);
continued abundance of legumes.
As in the previous year, there were decreases in the presence of bare ground and the
presence of sparse vegetation. Both of which are key habitat features for the thermophilic
invertebrates typical of the region's brownfield sites.
2013
Whilst some target brownfield habitat characteristics were present on the landscaping, overall
it appeared that lack of management had accelerated development of some negative features
at the expense of target open mosaic features. As such the balance between good and poor
quality brownfield habitat features had not continued to improve between the third and fourth
year surveys. This was particularly due to the development of thick grass -dominated swards
and lack of bare ground. This led to:
an increase in tall grass but loss of tall herbs;
a decrease in floral abundance and diversity;
184
loss or reduction in key species such as legumes, toadflax, weld or mignonette, and
wormwood;
loss of bare exposed sandy areas for thermophilic insects.
6. Summary
Since its establishment in 2010, the monitoring programme on the Barking Riverside office
landscaping trial has provided a wealth of data on the range of biodiversity supported and
habitat niches created. Comparison of the brownfield landscaping areas with the soft
landscaping areas and neighbouring brownfield habitat has provided contextualisation of the
value of such habitat in relation to the soft landscaping areas of the development which are
typical of those found in modern urban commercial and residential developments in the UK.
Moreover, the repeated methodology has enabled annual comparison of performance in
terms of both biodiversity supported and aesthetics of the trial habitat. Such a case study is
an invaluable first step in terms of encouraging the use of biomimicry to incorporate regional
habitat of local and national conservation importance into the design of urban greenspace.
Key findings from the monitoring to inform this process included:
Fixed-point photography
For the baseline survey, nineteen fixed points were established within the Barking Riverside
office landscaping. This was increased to 22 when 3 soft landscaping fixed -points were
introduced in 2012. The fixed-point photography proved to be an effective tool for
documenting the colonisation of the landscaping. This included demonstrating how different
substrates and habitat types colonised at different rates and how the open flower -rich areas
(which are a target habitat feature typical of high quality brownfield sites) gradually colonised
leading to reduction in floral abundance and increase in tall grasses. For the majority of
habitat pockets, 2011 appeared to be optimal in terms of aesthetics of the landscaping and
2012 appeared to be optimal in terms of floral diversity and abundance. The gradual
colonisation and reduction in flowers by the time of the 2013 photos indicated that
management intervention was too infrequent to maintain the open sward habitat target for
some of the landscaping pockets. Discussions have been held with the landscape managers
to increase management intervention on some areas of the site. Monitoring will be continued
to assess the effect of this.
185
Vegetation surveys
Observations made from the fixed-point photos were supported by the vegetation surveys.
Inventories of all floral species on the landscaping within the field of view of each fixed -point
photo demonstrated an overall increase in floral diversity between 2010 and 2011 and then
generally another increase between 2011 and 2012. Between 2012 and 2013, however, the
majority of areas demonstrated declines in floral abundance.
In terms of total number of species recorded across the whole landscaping area, the most
diverse year was 2012 with 148 floral species recorded. This demonstrated the diversity
inherent in such a landscaping technique particularly when taking into account that the area in
question covered only 0.5 ha of urban landscaping and only a single floral survey was carried
out. Indeed, the total diversity could have been much higher than this were repeat surveys
carried out throughout the growing season.
Many of the floral species recorded on the brownfield landscaping pockets we re those
considered to be representative of the high quality brownfield habitats within the region that
the landscaping was designed to emulate (Appendix 3). As such it appears that the
landscaping achieved at least some of its key objectives. When comparisons were made with
the floral diversity of soft landscaping control areas of the Barking Riverside development, it
became apparent that many of these key brownfield floral species were absent. In fact soft
landscaping pockets of approximately equivalent size were found to have significantly lower
floral diversity than the brownfield landscaping pockets.
The combination of the fixed-point photography and floral surveys were also used to identify
the occurrence of synusia (niches) within the landscaping. Five different synusia were
identified (ground layer; herb layer; shrub layer, tree layer, non-ground level layer) providing a
range of niches for the associated biodiversity to exploit. This structure within the brownfield
landscaping was critical for supporting a broad range of diversity. This was demonstrated by
the invertebrate survey results which recorded very different assemblages dependent upon
the different habitat characteristics within each brownfield and soft landscaping pocket.
Invertebrate survey - Timed counts
Highest bumblebee timed counts appeared to be correlated with habitat type, floral type and
floral abundance. Wildflower meadow areas and areas of ornamental planting with floral
species which appeared to be preferred by foraging bumblebees consistently recorded the
highest bumblebee numbers and diversity. Bumblebee species recorded during the timed
counts comprised six species considered to be nationally ubiquitous, but also recorded two
UK Biodiversity Action Plan species, Bombus humilis and Bombus sylvarum. Timed counts
186
revealed patterns of decline in bumblebee abundance and species diversity by the time of the
2013 surveys. This pattern mirrored that recorded for floral diversity and provided further
evidence to support a need for slightly more intensive management intervention to maintain
habitat quality.
In contrast to the bumblebee diversity recorded on the brownfield landscaping areas, only a
single nationally ubiquitous species of bumblebee was recorded on the soft landscaping
control areas. Bumblebee number and species diversity was found to be significantly greater
on the brownfield landscaping than the soft landscaping for all brownfield ISAs in 2013 and all
but one brownfield landscaping ISA in 2012. When compared to an area of typical brownfield
habitat on the undeveloped area of the site, during the baseline survey, timed counts on the
landscaping were significantly lower than on the brownfield habitat both in terms of
bumblebee number and species diversity. By the time of the 2011 and 2012 su rveys this was
no longer the case and performance on the brownfield habitat pockets was similar to that on
the brownfield area. By the time of the 2013 survey this dynamic had changed again with the
brownfield habitat having significantly greater numbers o f bumblebees. This provided more
evidence for the need for management intervention on the landscaping to maintain the
wildflower abundance and diversity.
Timed counts of butterflies demonstrated a similar pattern of year-on-year increases but, in
contrast to the bumblebees, numbers did not decline by 2013. Butterfly species diversity
followed a similar trend. This indicated that butterflies may have been associated with more
grass-dominated tall swards and highlighted a need for longer rotation cutting of some areas
to maintain this habitat and create a mosaic including bare areas, open flower-rich areas and
more grass-dominated areas. In total, 11 species of butterfly were recorded on the brownfield
landscaping habitat pockets. In contrast, only three species were recorded on the soft
landscaping areas. Statistical analysis revealed that significantly greater numbers and
diversity of butterfly species were recorded on the brownfield landscaping than the soft
landscaping in all brownfield ISAs in 2013 and all but one (ISA6) in 2012. In relation to the
brownfield landscaping, generally significantly greater numbers of butterflies were recorded
on the brownfield habitat in 2010 and 2011, on the brownfield landscaping in 2012 and then
little significant difference in 2013. For butterfly diversity, little statistical significance was
recorded between the brownfield habitat and brownfield landscaping but, when it was, the
brownfield habitat was more diverse.
In terms of vegetation use by bumblebees on the brownfield landscaping, colonised floral and
sown wildflowers generally comprised the vast majority of visits. The exception to this was in
2010 when little flora other than planted ornamentals was available. For butterflies, non -
foraging observations were most frequent (e.g. in flight or resting on grass). Of the visits that
were recorded to flowering plants proportionately very few were recorded on planted
187
ornamentals. The exception to this being buddleia in 2010. These records highlight the
importance of including wildflower areas in urban landscape design in order to maximise
biodiversity. This is particularly the case for target conservation priority species such as the
UK BAP bumblebee, Bombus humilis.
Bombus humilis numbers demonstrated a general pattern of increase from 2010 to 2011 and
2011 to 2012 with the majority of observations being associated with flora in the wildflower
meadow areas. As reported in previous studies (Connop et al. 2013) the majority of visits by
this species were made to flora within the plant family Fabaceae (e.g. Lotus corniculatus and
Trifolium pratense).However in 2010 and 2013, when the wildflower meadows were
suboptimal for forage, a greater proportion of visits were to planted ornamentals.
Numbers of B. humilis on the landscaping were generally similar to or significantly greater
than those on the brownfield landscaping indicating that the meadow areas created within the
brownfield landscaping pockets were suitable and beneficial for this species. In stark contrast
to this, no B. humilis individuals were recorded on the soft landscaping control areas.
Invertebrate survey - Sweep net surveys
Sweep net surveys recorded a suite of conservation priority species utilizing the brownfield
landscaping. Of most interest was only the third modern record of Andrena nigriceps in Essex
and the RDB3 species Lassioglossum pauperatum. In contrast to this, only a single species of
local conservation importance was recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs in 2012 and again
in 2013. This highlighted the potential importance that brownfield landscaping could play in
biodiversity conservation in urban areas.
More evidence for the added biodiversity value of brownfield landscaping was provided by the
functional groupings diversity assessment of the sweep net data. Invertebrate samples were
sorted into invertebrate group diversity (at the taxanomic Order level or similar). At this broad
grouping level more diverse invertebrate assemblages were recorded on the brownfield
landscaping than on the neighbouring brownfield habitat area. The only exception to this was
the most ornamental brownfield landscaping area (ISA6). Diversity on the brownfield
landscaping was also consistently similar to or greater than the soft landscaping ISAs, again
with the exception of the most ornamental brownfield landscaping area (ISA6). Whilst no
significant difference was recorded between the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the soft
landscaping in 2012, when replicate sampling was introduced in each ISA in 2013 the
brownfield landscaping ISAs were significantly more diverse than the soft landscaping ISAs.
Similar results were also revealed when the target groups - Araneae, Coleoptera and
Hymenoptera were analysed to species level. Greatest numbers of species for each of these
188
groups were recorded on the brownfield ISAs and lowest numbers were recorded on the soft
landscaping ISAs. Number on the soft landscaping ISAs were so low that no Coleoptera or
Hymenoptera were caught during sweep netting on the amenity grass and tree pock et area of
the soft landscaping (ISA10) and the number of Hymenoptera caught was significantly greater
on the brownfield landscaping than the soft landscaping ISAs.
In addition to overall diversity of invertebrates, an assessment was carried out of the
conservation value of the sweep net samples from each ISA. Invertebrate rarity scores
assigned in Natural England's Invertebrate Species -Habitat Information System (ISIS) were
used to calculate a relative conservation value for the combined sweep net totals for each ISA
sampled during the 2013 surveys. Rarity scores, and thus indicative conservation value, was
higher on all of the brownfield habitat pockets than the soft landscaping ISAs. The highest
rarity values recorded were on three of the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield
habitat ISA.
Invertebrate survey - Pitfall traps
Further evidence for the value of the brownfield landscaping in terms of invertebrate diversity
and conservation value came from the pit fall trap surveys. For the 2010 and 2011 surveys a
single large trap was placed within each ISA. Losses of some of these traps meant that
comprehensive data was not available. Nevertheless, in the traps that remained intact,
several conservation priority species were recorded including the RDB2 beetle Polistichus
connexus and an undescribed spider Megalepthyphantes sp. nova.
Assessment of the surviving 2010 and 2011 traps in terms of invertebrate gro ups
demonstrated substantial differences between brownfield landscaping ISAs. Of particular
interest was the sand bank area (ISA3). This ISA recorded the highest number of individuals
of any ISA, one of the highest overall group diversities, and highest number and species
diversity of Coleoptera. It also recorded one the of the lowest number of Araneae individuals
and Araneae species diversity of all of the ISAs. The woodland pocket (ISA1) recorded an
almost opposite pattern to this recording the highest number and species diversity of Araneae
and one of the lowest number and species diversity of Coleoptera. This pattern occurred for
both the 2010 and 2011 surveys and similar, but not as pronounced, patterns were also
observed for other ISAs. These patterns indicated that there were substantial differences
between the invertebrate assemblages recorded between different habitat management
areas. This finding highlighted the importance of incorporating habitat heterogeneity of a
range of habitat types into design plans for enhancing the overall site biodiversity.
In 2012 and 2013 the pit fall trap methodology was changed to multiple trapping in each ISA to
avoid the impacts of trap losses. Survey area was also increased to include brownfield habitat
189
and soft landscaping areas. This provided additional detail on the brownfield landscaping
performance. The more comprehensive pitfall trapping methodology included the recording of
a key conservation priority species on the brownfield landscaping, the RDB1 (+ extinct)
Coleoptera Scybalicus oblonguisculus. This species was only recorded on the brownfield
landscaping ISAs 3, 4 and 5 plus a single specimen recorded on the brownfield habitat area
(ISA7). Scybalicus oblonguisculus individuals were collected in 2012 and 2013. A number of
additional national and local conservation priority species were also recorded. Whilst several
were recorded on the soft landscaping areas, the average number of conservation priority
species per ISA were substantially higher on the brownfield landscaping and brownfield
habitats than the soft landscaping ISAs.
This pattern was replicated within the 2012 and 2013 pit fall trap invertebrate group diversity
analyses. With the exception of ISA6 in 2013, no significant difference was recorded between
the brownfield landscaping ISAs and the brownfield ISA. In contrast, a significantly greater
invertebrate group diversity was recorded on 4 of the 6 brownfield ISAs than the soft
landscaping ISAs for both survey years. The other two ISAs (ISAs 1 and 6) r ecorded no
significant difference. Similar patterns of increased diversity on the brownfield landscaping
were also recorded for the target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera. Species
numbers were greatest on the brownfield landscaping ISAs 2 and 3 in 2012 and on ISAs 2, 3
& 5 and the brownfield habitat ISA in 2013. Across the two survey years, lowest diversities
were consistently recorded on the soft landscaping ISAs and the most ornamental of the
brownfield ISAs (ISA6). Of particular interest, however, was the relatively large proportion of
Araneae species in the soft landscaping ISAs and very few Coleoptera and Hymenoptera
species. This contrasted with the brownfield ISAs which recorded relatively similar proportions
of all three groups. Again this provided evidence for the importance of habitat heterogeneity in
supporting a diversity of invertebrate groups.
Rarity scores for the 2012 and 2013 surveys replicated patterns observed for the target
groups with ISAs 2 and 3 recording the highest conservation values in 2012 and ISAs 3 and 5
scoring the highest in 2013. ISA6 and the soft landscaping ISAs recorded the lowest
numbers. Of particular interest was the brownfield habitat ISA which also scored consistently
high rarity scores, despite recording relatively few species from the target groups in 2012.
Perhaps the key difference between the 2012 and 2013 surveys was that the average number
of conservation priority species per trap had decreased on the brownfield landscaping ISAs
by the time of the 2013 survey. No similar trend was recorded for the brownfield habitat ISA
providing some further evidence that the habitat quality of the landscaping had declined for
invertebrate conservation interests. Despite this decline, the brownfield landscaping ISA
averages were still substantially greater than those for the soft landscaping ISAs.
190
Invertebrate survey - general
Many of the species recorded during the invertebrate survey, and particularly the
conservation priority species, were thermophilic and/or saproxylic invertebrates with complex
life cycle requirements. Being heavily focused on visual aesthetics, traditional urban
landscape design provides some of the nectar and pollen-rich flora vital for many of these
invertebrates. It does not however, encapsulate the range of synusia (such as bare sand,
rubble and standing deadwood) and many of the native wildflowers necessary for these
invertebrates to persist. As such, these invertebrates are becoming increasingly rare as they
are marginalised on the only sites that retain these features in urban landscapes - brownfield
sites. With brownfield sites targeted for redeveloped through regeneration initiatives, the final
strangleholds of these species in the UK are being lost.
The difference in general diversity and diversity of target groups and conservation priority
species between the brownfield landscaping and soft landscaping indicated that the
brownfield landscaped areas had gone some way towards achieving the aim of encapsulating
the mosaic of habitats typical of brownfield sites. Indeed, this conclusion was supported by
the positive result of the brownfield assessment form (Appendix 3) which recorded many
habitat features within the landscaping that are considered to be typical of high quality
brownfield sites.
Brownfield habitat monitoring
Use of the Brownfield Habitat Assessment form (Roberts et al. 2006) proved to be an
effective broad-brush approach to assessing the quality of the brownfield landscaping in
relation to meeting the targets of incorporating brownfield habitat features into the urban
landscaping initiative. Baseline assessment in 2010 indicated that the landscaping created
had produced a good approximation of high quality brownfield sites containing several of the
key habitat features but also a some negative indicator features.
Annual assessment provided additional evidence to support the development of a
management plan for the conservation of brownfield habitat characteristics with particular
focus on retaining the open flower-rich areas. Surveys recorded an initial increase in key
habitat features such as tall herbs, flower abundance, and key species such as legumes. In
contrast, a decrease in bare ground and sparse vegetation was also identified. By 2013,
surveys recorded an overall decrease in habitat quality due to changes in several key habitat
features including an increase in tall grass, loss of tall herbs, decrease in floral abundance
and diversity, loss of bare sandy areas and loss of key species (particularly a reduction in
legumes). Whilst tall grass areas seemed to be the preferred habitat for butterflies on the site,
domination of this habitat type appeared to contribute to the reduction of overall brownfield
191
biodiversity. These results indicated a need for management intervention to mimic the
disturbance regime typical on many brownfield sites to maintain the open swards, floral
richness and abundance of flowers.
Differing rates of colonisation between the sand bank areas and the other landscaped areas
of the site also indicated that consideration should be given to the more comprehensive use
of alternative aggregates to topsoil for roll out of brownfield landscaping acr oss the
development. Recycled topsoil is often nutrient rich and is typically not a dominant substrate
on most high quality brownfield sites. By using topsoil for the majority of the base substrate
for the brownfield landscaping trial, rates of colonisation and succession were accelerated
and thus a need for greater management intervention at greater cost was required. Use of
alternative aggregates such as recycled sands, gravels and potentially green roof-type
aggregates, would slow down this successional process.
Such was the success of the brownfield habitat assessment survey methodology in relation to
capturing the patterns recorded during fixed-point photography, vegetation and invertebrate
surveys that the authors would recommend its use for informing the design of future
brownfield landscaping initiatives that it is hoped will be inspired by this endeavour.
Associated ecosystem services
Due to limitations of budget for the brownfield landscaping design and practicalities
associated with the location of the experiment in a public access area at the entrance to the
Barking Riverside offices and the construction site, it was not possible to assess associated
ecosystem service benefits of the landscape design such as water attenuation, air pollution
regulation, carbon storage and urban climate regulation (Pushpam 2010). Detailed analysis of
the ecosystem service performance in terms of these regulatory services was not however
deemed necessary in the present study as there was already a wealth of data available on
the numerous ecological and economic benefits of including greenspace in urban areas
including water management (Mann 2000; Mentens et al. 2006), mitigation of the urban heat
island effect (Ernst and Weigerding 1985; Von Stülpnagel et al. 1990; Bass et al. 2002) and
air pollution (Pugh et al 2012). In addition, a TURAS green roof study at Barking Riverside
has demonstrated that there was no associated ecosystem service cost in terms of water
attenuation and thermal performance of moving away from typical aesthetic urban green
infrastructure (green roof) designs to more biodiverse systems (Connop et al. 2013) indeed
many improvements in performance were recorded.
The aim of the present study was to investigate how biodiversity could be embedded within
urban greenspace design to enhance the multifunctionality of ecosystem service performance
of generic urban soft landscaping. It is important to recognise, however, that brownfield
192
landscaping designed using regional conservation priority habitat as inspiration would also
perform the target regulatory services of industry standard urban green infrastructure
components such as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDs) and green walls. Indeed,
there is no reason that brownfield habitat features could not be inco rporated into urban SuDs
design.
Certainly the brownfield landscaping would be performing key services for the Barking
Riverside development in terms of:
providing permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration;
storing stormwater in ephemeral wet areas (this was particularly apparent in ISA6
where common reed (Phargmites australis) had colonised the landscaping);
providing urban comfort zones through the conversion of hard standing areas with
different thermal bulk and surface radiative properties to vegetated areas with
increased evaporative cooling;
significant leaf area contributing to the removal of NOx and PM air pollution reduction
(Pugh et al. 2012);
carbon sequestration through the development of biomass within the vegetation and
organic matter build up in soils (it would be excepted that biomass build up would be
greater on brownfield landscaping than soft landscaping and amenity grass areas,
due to low maintenance intensity leading to increased standing biomass and
increased organic input into substrates).
Additional benefits of reduced management requirements of using regionally typical habitats
and plants in urban landscaping programmes includes reduced fossil fuel, irrigation and
fertiliser requirements and reduced costs.
Cost
Whilst no specific costs for landscape management were determined for the Barking
Riverside brownfield landscaping due to the varied frequencies of experimental management
undertaken to determine the most appropriate intervention level, it would be expected that
management costs would be lower than for intensively managed amenity greenspace. This
cost will be determined once the appropriate management intervention level has been
established at the conclusion of the experiment. In lieu of this, however, it can be predicted
that a reduction in cost would be associated with the reduced management intensity
compared to amenity and ornamental landscaping, and reduced requirements for irrigation,
fertiliser input and fossil fuel use. Indeed, calculations carried out by the landscape contractor
for a similar brownfield landscaping initiative on the University of East London Docklands
Campus (Connop 2012) found that it would be approximately £200 per annum cheaper to
manage the 0.3 ha area as brownfield habitat than regularly cutting it as amenity grass. This
represented a 25% reduction in cost.
193
Conclusion
Whilst by no means providing a panacea to the conflict between urban development and
environmental protection, the results of the first four years of this study have provided an
insight into the potential for innovation in urban green infrastructure design. Specifically the
potential for combining the aesthetics of landscape design with ecological understanding
inspired by habitat of regional conservation importance. Applying such principles to urban
green infrastructure design enables the creation and restoration of greenspace able to
support diverse biodiversity and thus support truly multifunctional associated ecosystem
services. As such this approach to urban green infrastructure design supports urban
sustainability and resilience beyond the traditionally targeted cultural services (aesthetics and
amenity use) and the more recently recognised regulatory services (e.g. stormwater
attenuation, water quality and air quality) to include additional regulatory services (e.g.
pollination) as well as provisioning and habitat services (Pushpam 2010) which are typically
not associated with urban landscaping environments.
Continued monitoring of the landscaping is vital to establish the a ppropriate levels of
management for a habitat type typically managed by disturbance and contamination in the
wider landscape. It is also important to monitor patterns of biodiversity value on the
landscaping as the Barking Riverside brownfield site as a whole continues to be developed.
Current understanding of habitat fragmentation and metapopulation dynamics (Gilpin, 1987;
Opdam, 1990; Hanski & Gilpin, 1991; Reed, 2004) dictates that there is a critical area of
habitat required to support populations of these rare invertebrates. Unfortunately however, it
is not fully understood what this critical area is and how it changes from species to species. In
essence, the landscaping monitoring could be used as a barometer to measure whether there
needs to be a critical area of source high quality brownfield habitat within the vicinity of the
brownfield landscaping for it to be effective, or whether small pockets of brownfield habitat
within a large landscape are sufficient to act as stepping stones to conserve overall
biodiversity, and particularly the conservation priority invertebrate interest, within the
landscape fabric.
Now that the brownfield landscaping trial has proved to be successful in its aims and
objectives, the next stage will be to roll out these design principles throughout the Barking
Riverside Development through ecological engineering and to monitor the results. If the
Barking Riverside Development is able to conserve these invertebrate populations throughout
the growth of the new community, it would serve as a blueprint for future urban planning on
how to incorporate habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity into sustainable development. It is,
however, important to recognise that this is a case study and further monitoring of biodiverse
landscaping inspired by regional habitat context should be carried out in order to provide a
194
more complete picture of the potential of these design principles and the range of biodiversity
that can be supported by urban landscape design.
7. Acknowledgements
The long-term monitoring of this innovative urban landscaping programme would not have
been possible without the support of the EU FP7 TURAS (Transitioning towards Urban
Resilience and Sustainability) project and Natural England research funding.
The authors wish to thank Natural England and Barking Riverside for promoting this
innovative and much-needed approach to marrying sustainable development and biodiversity
conservation in the national biodiversity hotspot of the East Thames Corridor. We would also
like to extend a particular debt of thanks to Samantha Davenport and Dominic Coath of
Natural England for identifying the funding to enable this experiment and monitoring
programme to be established and developed
Large thanks also to Peter Harvey and Richard Jones for thei r invaluable help with
invertebrate identification. A special mention must also be made to the landscape designers
at DF Clark Ltd for generating stylish and functioning state-of-the-art habitat features when
faced with the daunting task of fusing the wildness of brownfield habitats within the
orderliness of office landscaping.
195
8. References
Banaszak, J. (1980) Studies on methods of censusing the number of bees (Hymenoptera,
Apoidea). Polish Ecological Studies 6, 355-365.
Barking Riverside (2009) Development Vision. Online. Available from
http://www.barkingriverside.co.uk/vision.html [Accessed May 2014]
Bass, B., Stull, R., Krayenjoff, S. and Martilli, A. (2002) Modelling the impact of green roo f
infrastructure on the urban heat island in Toronto. Green Roofs Infrastructure Monitor
4(1), pp. 2-3.
Bodsworth, E., Shepherd, P. & Plant, C. (2005) Exotic plant species on brownfield land: their
value to invertebrates of nature conservation importance. English Nature Research
Report No. 650. Peterborough: English Nature.
Bourn, N.A.D and Thomas, J.A. (2002) The challenge of conserving grassland insects at the
margin of their range in Europe. Biological Conservation 104, pp. 285-292.
Buchholz (2010) Ground spider assemblages as indicators for habitat structure in inland
sand ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(9), 2565-2595.
Buglife (2009) Planning for brownfield biodiversity: a best practice guide. Peterborough:
Buglife.
Cadenasso, M.L., Pickett, S.T.A. and Schwarz, K. (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban
ecosystems: reconceptualising land cover and a framework for classification.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5, pp. 80-88.
Collier, M., Nedović-Budić, Z., Aerts, J., Connop, S., Foley, D., Foley, K., Newport, D.,
McQuaid, S., Slaev, A., Verburg, P. (2013) Transitioning to resilience and
sustainability in urban communities. Cities 32, S21-S28.
Connop, S. (2012) The Beetle Bump: innovative urban habitat creation for rare insects. Essex
Naturalist 29 (New Series), 89-94.
Connop, S., Hill, T., Steer, J. and Shaw, P. (2010) The role of dietary breadth in national
bumblebee (Bombus) declines: simple correlation? Biological Conservation 143 (11),
2739-2746.
Connop, S., Nash, C., Gedge, D. Kadas, G, Owczarek, K and Newport, D. (2013) TURAS
green roof design guidelines: Maximising ecosystem service provision through
regional design for biodiversity. Milestone Report for TURAS (FP7). London:
University of East London.
DEFRA (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildli fe and ecosystem services.
London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affai rs.
Drake, C.M., Lott, D.A., Alexander, K.N.A. & Webb, J. (2007) Surveying terrestrial and
freshwater invertebrates for conservation evaluation. Natural England Research
Report NERR005. Sheffield: Natural England.
Edwards, M. and Jenner, M. (2005) Field guide to the bumblebees of Great Britain & Ireland.
Ocelli, Eastbourne, UK.
196
Eisenberg, E. (1998) The ecology of Eden. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, New York
City, USA.
Ellis, J. (2006) PhD Thesis. Submitted to University of Southampton.
English Nature (2003) Green roofs: their existing status and potential for conserving
biodiversity in urban areas. English Nature Research Reports, Report no. 498,
English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough, UK.
Environment Agency (2002) The Urban Environment in England and Wales: A Detailed
Assessment. Environment Agency Report, Bristol.
Ernst, W. and Weigerding, I. (1985) Oberflächenentwässerung, Gewässerentlastung durch
ökologische/ökonomische Planung. Bundesblatt 34(11), pp. 722 -732.
European Commission (2013) Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural
Capital. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructures/1_EN
_ACT_part1_v5.pdf [Accessed May 2014]
Foster, S., Lawrence, A. and Morris, B. (1998) Groundwater in urban development. World
Bank Technical Paper no 390, Washington DC.
Francis, R. and Chadwick, M. (2012) What makes a species synurbic? Applied Geography
32(2), 514-521.
Gillet, F. and Gallandet, J-D. (1996) Integrated synusial phytosociology: some notes on a
new, multi-scalar approach to vegetation analysis. Journal of Vegetation Science, 7,
13-18.
Gilpin, M.E. (1987) Spatial structure and population vulnerability. In: Viable populations for
conservation (ed. Soule, M.E.), pp. 125-140, Cambridge University Press.
Goulson, D and Cory, J. (2008) Flower constancy and learning in foraging preferences of the
green-veined white butterfly Pleris napi. Ecological Entomology 18, Issue 4, 315–320.
Goulson, D. and Darvill, B. (2004) Niche overlap and diet breadth in bumblebees; are rare
species more specialized in their choice of flowers? Apidologie 35, 55-63.
Goulson, D., Lye, G.C. and Darvill, B. (2009) Diet breadth, coexistence and rarity in
bumblebees. Biodiversity and Conservation 17, 3269-3288.
Hanley, M.E., Franco, M., Pichon, S., Darvill, B. and Goulson, D. (2008) Breeding system,
pollinator choice and variation in pollen quality in British herbaceous plants.
Functional Ecology 22, 592-598.
Hanski, I. & Gilpin, M. (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 42, 3-16.
Harvey, P.R. (2000) The East Thames Corridor: a nationally important invertebrate fauna
under threat. British Wildlife 12, 91-98.
Harvey, P.R. (2007) All of a buzz project reports. Report for Buglife, Peterborough.
Hellawell, J.M.(1978) Biological surveillance of rivers. Medmenham: Water Resource Centre.
197
HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. Available at:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.asp [Accessed:
May 2014].
Hunter, M.R. and Hunter, M.D. (2008) Designing for conservation of insects in the built
environment. Insect Conservation and Diversity 1, pp. 189-196.
Hurford, C. and Perry, K. (2000) Habitat Monitoring for Conservation Management and
Reporting. 1: Case Studies. Bangor, Countryside Council for Wales.
Hurford, C., Jones, M.R. & Brown, A. (2001) Habitat Monitoring for Conservation
Management and Reporting. 2: Field Methods. Bangor, Countryside Council for
Wales.
Jones, R.A. (2007) Caught in the greenwash: What future for invertebrate conservation on the
brownfield sites of the Thames Gateway?. Report for Buglife, Peterborough.
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Elek, Z., Balázs, K., Centeri, C., Falusi, E., Jeanneret, P., Penksza,
K., Podmaniczky, L., Szalkovszki, O., Báldi, A. (2013) Earthworms, spiders and bees
as indicators of habitat quality and management in a low-input farming region—A
whole farm approach, Ecological Indicators 33,111-120.
Kremen, C., Colwell, R., Erwin, T., Murphy, D., Noss, R. and Sanjayan, M. (1993) Terrestrial
Arthropod Assemblages: Their Use in Conservation Planning. Conservation Biology
7, 796–808.
Kwak, M.M. (1987) Marking bees without anaesthesia. Bee World 68, 180 -181.
Lott, D. (2007) Synopsis of ISIS 2008 and its use in Common Standards Monitoring. Report
produced by for Natural England, Stenus Research, Leicestershire.
Mann, G. (2000) Retentionsverhalten begrünter Dächer in Abhängigkeit von
derNiederschlagsregion. Stadt und Grün 49(10), pp.681-686.
Marsalek, J., Jimenez-Cisneros, B., Malmquist, P., Karamouz, M., Goldenfum, J., Chocat, B.
(2006) Urban water cycle processes and interactions. Urban water series,
International Hydrological Programme UNESCO, Regional Bureau for Science in
Europe.
McKinney, M. (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52, pp. 883 –
890.
McKinney, M. (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological
Conservation 127 (3), pp. 247–260.
Mentens, J., Raes, D. and Hermy, M. (2006) Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater
runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape and Urban Planning 7 7, pp.
217-226.
Naumann, S., McKenna D., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M. and Raymont, M. (2011). Design,
implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final report.
Brussels: European Commission.
198
Niachou, A., Papakonstantinou, K., Santamouris, M., Tsangrassoulis, A. and Mihalakakou, G.
(2001) Analysis of the greenroof thermal properties and investigation of its energy
performance. Energy and Buildings 33, pp. 719-729.
Opdam, P. (1990) Understanding the ecology of populations in fragmented l andscapes.
Transcript from the 19th IUGB Congress, Trondheim 1989, 373-380.
Pickett, S.T.A, Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Nilon, C.H., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer, W.C. and
Costanza, R. (2001) Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecology, physical,
and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 32, pp. 127-157.
Pugh, T., Mackenzie, R., Whyatt, D. & Hewitt, C. (2012) Effectiveness of green infrastructure
for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons. Environmental Science and
Technology 46( 14), pp. 7692–7699.
Pushpam, K. (Ed.) (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and
Economic Foundations. Report for the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-
reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/#.Ujr1xH9mOG8 (Accessed May 2014).
Ranta, E. and Lundberg, H. (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: the significance of
differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35, 298-302.
Reed, D.H. (2004) Extinction risk in fragmented habitats, Animal Conservation, 7, 181–191.
Riding, A., Critchley, N., Wilson, L. & Parker, J. (2010) Definition and mapping of open mosaic
habitats on previously developed land: Phase 1. Available at:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC0722_9022_FRP.pdf
[Accessed: August 2012].
Rivaz-Martinez, S., Sanchez-Mata, D. and Costa, M. (1999) North American boreal and
western temperate forest vegetation. Itinera Geobotanica, 12, 5-316.
Roberts, J, Jones, R. and Harvey, P. (2006) All of a Buzz in the Thames Gateway: Appendix
3 – Habitat Assessment Form. Available at:
http://www.buglife.org.uk/Resources/Buglife/Documents/AoaBPhase1Appendix4.pdf
[Accessed February 2011]
Saville, N.M., Dramstad, W.E., Fry, G.L.A. and Corbet, S.A. (1997) Bumblebee movement in
a fragmented landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 61, 145 -154.
Schochat, E., Warren, P.S. and Faeth, S.H. (2006) Future directions in urba n ecology. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 21, pp. 661-662.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Cities and Biodiversity Outlook.
Montreal, 64 pages.
Stace, C. (2010) Field Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Takakura, T., Kitade, S. and Goto, E. (2000) Cooling effect of greenery cover over a building.
Landscape and Urban Planning 31, pp. 1-6.
Town and Country Planning Association and The Wildlife Trusts (2012) Planning for a healthy
environment - good practice guidance for green infrastructure and biodiversity.
199
Available at: http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_TWT_GI-Biodiversity-Guide.pdf
[Accessed: May 2014].
UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment:
Synthesis of the KeyFindings. Available at: http://uknea.unep-
wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [Accessed: July 2014].
UNFPA (2007) State of World Population: unleashing the potential for urban growth. Available
at: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html [Accessed February
2011].
Usher, M.B. (1997) Small populations: fragmentation, populations dynamics and population
genetics. In Tew, T.G. et al. (eds) The role of genetics in conserving small
populations, pp. 11-21, JNCC, Peterborough.
Villareal, E.L., Semadeni_Davies, A., Bengtsson, L. (2004) Inner city stormwater control using
a combination of best management practices. Ecological Engineering 22, pp.279 -298.
Von Stülpnagel, A., Horbert, M. and Sukopp, H. (1990) The importance of vegetation for the
urban climate. In: Sukopp, H. and Hejny, S. (Eds.) Urban Ecology. Plants and Plant
Communities in Urban Environments. SPB Academic Publication, The Hague, pp.
175-193.
White, R. (2002) Building the Ecological City. Woodland Publication, Cambridge.
Williams, P.H. (1989) Why are there so many species of bumblebees at Dungeness?
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 101, 31-44.
Yurtsever, S, Okyar, Z and Guler, N. (2010) What colour of flowers do Lepidoptera prefer for
foraging? Biologia 65, 1049-1056.
200
Appendix 1
A1.1 - 2010 sweep net results
Table A1.1.1. Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting
Species Order Number National Status Notes
Planthopper indet. Hemiptera 1 - -
Andrena nigriceps Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb
Essex Red Data Book species, only two records for the county (VC18/19) in
N.E. Essex
Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 2 - -
Episyrphus balteatus Syrphidae 1 - -
Eristalis tenax Syrphidae 1 - -
Table A1.1.2. Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting
Species Order Number National Status Notes
Nothing - - - -
Table A1.1.3. Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank
Species Order Number National Status Notes
Eristalis tenax Syrphidae 1 - -
Eupeodes luniger Syrphidae 1 - -
Scaeva pyrastri Syrphidae 1 - -
Table A1.1.4. Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting
Species Order Number National Status Notes
Harmonia axyridis Coleoptera 1 Introduced Spreading throughout UK
Philanthus triangulum Hymenoptera 1 RDB2 Spreading throughout UK, now locally common.
Possibly in need of status revision
Eristalis tenax Syrphidae 1
Eupodes luniger Syrphidae 1
Table A1.1.5. Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting
201
Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes
Eristalis arbustorum Syrphidae 1
Eupodes luniger Syrphidae 1
Table A1.1.6. Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Anthophora bimaculata Hymenoptera 1 - -
Megachile maritima Hymenoptera 1 - -
Episyrphus balteatus Syrphidae 1 - -
Table A1.1.7. Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Andrena dorsata Hymenoptera 1 - -
Episyrphus balteatus Syrphidae 1 - -
Eristalis arbustorum Syrphidae 1 - -
Eristalis intricarius Syrphidae 1 - -
Eristalis tenax Syrphidae 1 - -
Eupodes luniger Syrphidae 1 - -
A1.2 - 2011 sweep net results Table A.1.2.1. Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Anthocomus rufus Coleoptera 1 Local
Holot richapion pisi Coleoptera 1 Local
Meligethes fulvipes Coleoptera 3 Notable/N Essex Red Data species
Phyllotreta atra Coleoptera 1 Local
Phyllotreta nigripes Coleoptera 2
Oscinella frit Diptera 1
Tephritis divisa Diptera 2 New to Britain 2004
Liocoris tripustulatus Hemiptera 4
Lygus pratensis Hemiptera 1 RDB3
Orius niger Hemiptera 1
Plagiognathus
arbustorum Hemiptera 2
Eupteryx urticae Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha 2
Crossocerus annulipes Hymenoptera: 1
202
Aculeata
Diodontus minutus Hymenoptera: Aculeata 1
Table A.1.2.2. Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Xysticus cristatus Arachnida: Araneae 2
Cryptocephalus fulvus Coleoptera 1 Local
Phyllotreta diademata Coleoptera 1 Local
Table A.1.2.2. Continued
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Oscinella frit Diptera 1
Thaumatomyia glabra Diptera 1
Lonchoptera bifurcata Diptera 2
Leptocera nigra Diptera 3
Orius niger Hemiptera 2
Lygus maritimus Hemiptera 1
Lasioglossum leucozonium
Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1
Lasioglossum
minutissimum
Hymenoptera:
Aculeata
1
Lasioglossum pauperatum
Hymenoptera: Aculeata
4 RDB3 Regionally Important
Table A1.2.3. Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Agalenatea redii Arachnida: Araneae 2 Local
Xysticus cristatus Arachnida: Araneae 5
Stenurella melanura Coleoptera 1 Local
Eristalis tenax Diptera 1
Thaumatomyia glabra Diptera 1
Philaenus spumarius Homoptera:
Auchenorrhyncha
1
Ammophila sabulosa Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1 Local
Episyron rufipes Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1 Local
Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera:
Aculeata
1 Notable/Na Regionally Important
Melitta leporina Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1 Local Essex Threatened
Pemphredon lethifera Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1
Table A1.2.4. Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Xysticus cristatus Arachnida: Araneae 2
Ceratapion onopordi Coleoptera 1
203
Olibrus aeneus Coleoptera 1
Oscinella frit Diptera 2
Leptocera nigra Diptera 1
Philaenus spumarius Homoptera:
Auchenorrhyncha
1
Ammophila sabulosa Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1 Local
Lasioglossum leucozonium
Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1
Lasioglossum
pauxillum
Hymenoptera:
Aculeata
1 Notable/Na Regionally Important
Table A1.2.4. Continued
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Lasioglossum puncticolle
Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1 Notable/Nb Regionally Important
Table A1.2.5. Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Enoplognatha latimana Arachnida: Araneae 1 Local
Xysticus cristatus Arachnida: Araneae 1
Cheilosia vernalis Diptera 1
Lonchoptera bifurcata Diptera 1
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 1
Thaumatomyia hallandica
Diptera 1 Unknown
Eurydema oleracea Hemiptera 1 Local
Table A1.2.6. Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Salticus scenicus Arachnida: Araneae 1
Xysticus cristatus Arachnida: Araneae 1
Phyllotreta nigripes Coleoptera 1
Syritta pipiens Diptera 1
Thaumatomyia glabra Diptera 1
Lygus maritimus Hemiptera 1
Neophilaenus campestris
Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha
1
Philaenus spumarius Homoptera:
Auchenorrhyncha
1
Anthophora bimaculata
Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1 Local
Table A1.2.7. Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Enoplognatha latimana Arachnida: Araneae 1 Local
Tiso vagans Arachnida: Araneae 1
Xysticus cristatus Arachnida: Araneae 3
204
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Meligethes fulvipes Coleoptera 2 Notable/N Essex Red Data species
Phyllotreta atra Coleoptera 1 Local
Phyllotreta nigripes Coleoptera 2
Sitona lineatus Coleoptera 1
Reichertella geniculata Diptera 1
Anthocoris nemorum Hemiptera 3
Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1
Lasioglossum pauperatum
Hymenoptera: Aculeata
4 RDB3 Regionally Important
Table A1.2.7. Continued
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Philanthus triangulum Hymenoptera: Aculeata
1 RDB2
A1.3 - 2012 sweep net results Table A1.3.1. Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting
Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes Erigone alet ris Araneae 1 Naturalised
Philodromus
cespitum Araneae 4
Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 12
Unident. Lacewing Chrysopidae 1
Episyrphus balteatus Diptera 1
Euleia heraclei Diptera 1 Local
Melanostoma mellinum
Diptera 2
Tephritis divisa Diptera 1 New to Britain 2004
Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 1
Unident. Miridiae Hemiptera 7
Philaenus spumarius Homoptera 1
Philanthus triangulum
Hymenoptera 1 RDB2
Table A1.3.2. Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting
Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 1 Local
Enoplognatha ovata
sens. str. Araneae 1
Neoscona adianta Araneae 1 Local
Xysticus cristatus Araneae 1
Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 8
Unident. Weevil Coleoptera 2 Melanostoma
mellinum Diptera 1
Thecophora atra Diptera 1 Local
Unident. Diptera Diptera 8
205
Unident. Hemiptera Hemiptera 10
Andrena bicolor Hymenoptera 1
Colletes similis Hymenoptera 1 Local Lasius niger sens.
str. Hymenoptera 1
Unident. parasitica Hymenoptera 4
Unident. moth Lepidoptera 2
Table A1.3.3. Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 2 Local
Neoscona adianta Araneae 1 Local
Unident. Apionidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Curulionidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 2
Eristalis tenax Diptera 1
Melanostoma mellinum Diptera 2
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 1
Unident. Diptera Diptera 8
Coriomeris denticulatus Hemiptera 1
Unident. Hemiptera Hemiptera 1
Unident. Miridae Hemiptera 2
Andrena dorsata Hymenoptera 1 Local
Diodontus luperus Hymenoptera 1 Local
Oxybelus uniglumis Hymenoptera 1
Philanthus triangulum Hymenoptera 1 RDB2
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 1
Table A1.3.4. Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 1 Local
Erigone alet ris Araneae 2 Naturalised
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 1
Stenurella melanura Coleoptera 1 Local Unident. Apionidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Bruchus sp. Coleoptera 1
Unident. Chrysomelidae Coleoptera
Unident. Curculonidae Coleoptera 4
Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Olibrus sp. Coleoptera 10
Melanostoma
mellinum Diptera 1
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 2
Unident. Diptera Diptera 5
Unident. Miridae Hemiptera 7
Philaenus spumarius Homoptera 2
206
Hylaeus annularis Hymenoptera 1 Local
Passaloecus gracilis Hymenoptera 1 Pemphredon lethifera Hymenoptera 1
Philanthus triangulum Hymenoptera 1 RDB2
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 5
Table A1.3.5. Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 3 Local
Erigone alet ris Araneae 1 Naturalised
Philodromus cespitum Araneae 1
Unident. Bruchus sp. Coleoptera 3
Unident. Curculionidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Olibrus sp. Coleoptera 6 Melanostoma mellinum Diptera 3
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 1
Unident. Diptera Diptera 4
Eurydema oleracea Hemiptera 1 Local
Unident. Miridae Hemiptera 8
Philaenus spumarius Homoptera 1 Anthophora
bimaculata Hymenoptera 1 Local
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 2
Phalangium opilio Opiliones 1 Table A1.3.6. Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Chrysolina americana Coleoptera 1 Introduced
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 1
Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 1 Eristalis tenax Diptera 1
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 2 Unident. Diptera Diptera 4
Unident. Miridae Hemiptera 8
Unident. Planthopper Hemiptera 4
Table A1.3.7. Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Agalenatea redii Araneae 5 Local
Rhagonycha fulva Coleoptera 1
207
Unident. Bruchus sp. Coleoptera 1
Sphenella marginata Diptera 1 Local
Unident. Diptera Diptera 5 Eurydema oleracea Hemiptera 2 Local
Unident. Miridae Hemiptera 5
Unident. Nabidae Hemiptera 1
Philaenus spumarius Homoptera 3
Colletes similis Hymenoptera 1 Local
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 1
Table A1.3.8. Sweep net survey species, ISA8 - soft landscaping area
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Erigone alet ris Araneae 1 Naturalised
Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 18
Unident. Diptera Diptera 2
Melanostoma mellinum Diptera 1
Unident. Miridae Hemiptera 4
Unident. Pachynematus sp. Hymenoptera 1
Table A1.3.9. Sweep net survey species, ISA9 - soft landscaping area
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Bathyphantes gracilis Araneae 1
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 1 Local
Tephritis formosa Araneae 1 Local
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 1
Unident. Nititdulidae Coleoptera 3
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 1
Unident. Diptera Diptera 2
Unident. Miridae Hemiptera 2
Table A1.3.10. Sweep net survey species, ISA10 - soft landscaping area
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Unident. Diptera Diptera 8
A1.4 - 2013 sweep net results Table A1.4.1. Sweep net survey species, ISA 1 - Woodland planting
Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes
Agalenatea redii Araneae 1 Local Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 2 Local
Philodromus sp. Araneae 2
Unident. Araneae Araneae 12
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 5
Unident. Salticidae Araneae 1
208
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 4
Anthocomus rufus Coleoptera 1 Local
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 24 Unident.
Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Diptera Diptera 2
Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 3
Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 1 Lasioglossum
pauxillum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Na Regionally Important
Table A1.4.1. Continued
Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 1
Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 1
Myrmica sabuleti Hymenoptera 1 Local Spilomena troglodytes Hymenoptera 1
Essex Red Data species, Essex Vulnerable
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 40
Unident. Lepidoptera Lepidoptera 1
Unident. Lacewing Neuroptera 1 Table A1.4.2. Sweep net survey species, ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrub planting
Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes
Araneus diadematus Araneae 2
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 13 Local
Microlinyphia pusilla Araneae 1
Neoscona adianta Araneae 1 Local
Philodromus
cespitum Araneae 1
Unident. Araneae Araneae 6
Unident. Cheiracanthium sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Dictyna sp. Araneae 1
Unident.
Philodromus sp. Araneae 3
Unident. Salticidae Araneae 1
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 12
Chrysolina americana Coleoptera 1 Introduced
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Malvapion malvae Coleoptera 1
Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 6 Local
Oedemera nobilis Coleoptera 2
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 13
Unident. Longitarsus
sp. Coleoptera 3
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 2
209
Unident. Dolichopodidae Diptera 2
Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 5
Brachymeria minuta Hymenoptera 2 Nr
Epyris niger Hymenoptera 1 Unknown
Lasioglossum leucozonium Hymenoptera 2
Lasioglossum
pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3 Essex Red Data species
Table A1.4.2. Continued
Species Order Number/sex National Status Notes Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Na Regionally Important
Lasioglossum
villosulum Hymenoptera 1
Panurgus calcaratus Hymenoptera 1 Local
Trypoxylon attenuatum Hymenoptera 1
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 38
Unident. Lepidoptera Lepidoptera 4
Table A1.4.3. Sweep net survey species, ISA3 - Sand bank
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Dictyna latens Araneae 2 Local
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 12 Local
Philodromus cespitum Araneae 7
Unident. Araneae Araneae 15
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 15 Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 10
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 2 Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 7 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 4 Local Propylea quattuordecimpunctata Coleoptera 2
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 30
Unident. Dolichopodidae Diptera 2
Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 8
Unident. Diptera Diptera 1
Brachymeria minuta Hymenoptera 1 Nr
Diodontus minutus Hymenoptera 1 Lasioglossum leucozonium Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum
malachurum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb
Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 3 RDB3
Essex Red Data species, Regionally Important
Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 3
210
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 66 Unident. Lepidoptera (micro) Lepidoptera 1
Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 7
Chorthippus parallelus Orthoptera 1
Table A1.4.4. Sweep net survey species, ISA4 - Woodland planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Agalenatea redii Araneae 1 Local
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 8 Local
Philodromus cespitum Araneae 2
Tibellus oblongus Araneae 1
Unident. Araneae Araneae 13
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 11
Unident. Dictyna sp. Araneae 1 Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 7
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 5
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 1 Local
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 33
Unident. Longitarsus sp. Coleoptera 2
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 1
Unident. Platycheirus sp. Diptera 1
Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 2
Unident. planthopper Hemiptera 1
Hoplitis spinulosa Hymenoptera 1 Local
Lasioglossum leucozonium Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum
malachurum Hymenoptera 3 Notable/Nb
Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 11
Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 1
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 43
Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 1
Table A1.4.5. Sweep net survey species, ISA 5 - Herbaceous + shrub planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Agalenatea redii Araneae 1 Local
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 11 Local
211
Mermessus trilobatus Araneae 1 Colonised
Neoscona adianta Araneae 1 Local
Philodromus cespitum Araneae 2
Unident. Araneae Araneae 15
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 16 Unident. Cheiracanthium sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Clubiona sp. Araneae 1
Undent. Dictyna sp. Araneae 1
Table A1.4.5. Continued
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Unident Pardosa sp. Araneae 1 Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 7
Unident. Salticidae Araneae 1
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 17
Chrysolina americana Coleoptera 1 Introduced
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 4 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 5 Local
Oedemera nobilis Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 30 Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 1
Coremacera marginata Diptera 2 Local
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 1
Unident. Diptera Diptera 4 Unident. Dolichopodidae Diptera 1
Unident. Platycheirus
sp. Diptera 1
Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 3
Athalia rosae Hymenoptera 1 Local
Brachymeria minuta Hymenoptera 1 Nr Lasioglossum leucozonium Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3
Essex Red Data
species/Regionally important
Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 2 Notable/Na Regionally Important
Lasioglossum
villosulum Hymenoptera 10
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 52
Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 1 Table A1.4.6. Sweep net survey species, ISA6 - Rubble and feature planting
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Araneus diadematus Araneae 2
212
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 1 Local
Heliophanus flavipes Araneae 1
Unident. Araneae Araneae 1
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 5 Unident. Heliophanus
sp. Araneae 2
Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 3
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 5
Unident. Zygiella sp. Araneae 2 Table A1.4.6. Continued
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Adalia bipunctata Coleoptera 1
Anthocomus rufus Coleoptera 1 Local
Cassida rubiginosa Coleoptera 1 Coccinella
septempunctata Coleoptera 2
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 10
Eupeodes luniger Diptera 1
Sphaerophoria scripta Diptera 1
Unident. Diptera Diptera 2
Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 3
Ancistrocerus gazella Hymenoptera 1 Lasioglossum malachurum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb
Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 2 Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Na
Lasioglossum
villosulum Hymenoptera 4
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 30
Table A1.4.7. Sweep net survey species, ISA7 - Brownfield area control
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Agalenatea redii Araneae 4 Local
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 16 Local
Oedemera lurida Araneae 7 Local
Salticus scenicus Araneae 1
Unident. Araneae Araneae 2
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 6
Unident. Dictyna sp. Araneae 3 Unident. Heliophanus sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Linyphiidae Araneae 2
Unident. Longitarsus sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Ozyptila sp. Araneae 1
213
Unident. Philodromus sp. Araneae 2
Unident. Salticidae Araneae 2
Unident. Theridiidae Araneae 1
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 29 Coccinella septempunctata Coleoptera 1
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 4 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Psyllobora vigintiduopunctata Coleoptera 1
Table A1.4.7. Continued
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 38
Unident. Dolichopodidae Diptera 1
Unident. Tephritidae Diptera 4 Andrena flavipes Hymenoptera 1 Local
Epyris niger Hymenoptera 1 Unknown
Lasioglossum morio Hymenoptera 1 RDB3
Essex Red Data species/ Regionally important
Lasioglossum
pauperatum Hymenoptera 9 Notable/Na
Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 1
Spilomena troglodytes Hymenoptera 1 Essex Red Data species
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 39
Table A1.4.8. Sweep net survey species, ISA8 - soft landscaping area
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Anelosimus vittatus Araneae 1
Araneus diadematus Araneae 7
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 1 Local
Unident. Araneidae Araneae 1 Unident. Philodromus
sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Tetragnatha sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 2
Unident. Zygiella sp. Araneae 1 Anisosticta
novemdecimpunctata Coleoptera 1 Local
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Propylea quattuordecimpunctata Coleoptera 1
Unident. Chrysomelidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 3
Eupeodes corollae Diptera 1
214
Eupeodes luniger Diptera 1
Melanostoma mellinum Diptera 1
Unident. Syrphidae Diptera 2
Unident. Lygaeidae Hemiptera 1 Lasioglossum
leucozonium Hymenoptera 5
Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 1
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 17
Table A1.4.9. Sweep net survey species, ISA9 - soft landscaping area
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Araneus diadematus Araneae 3
Unident. Philodromus sp.
Araneae 4
Athalia rosae Hymenoptera 2 Local
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Unident. Diptera Diptera 1
Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 1
Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 1
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 9
Table A1.4.10. Sweep net survey species, ISA10 - soft landscaping area
Species Order Number National Status
Notes
Unident. Diptera Diptera 1
Epyris niger Hymenoptera 1 Unknown
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 2
Appendix 2
A2.1 - 2010 pitfall trap results
Table A2.1. Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, summer 2010. Tables include counts of all invertebrate groups recorded within traps
plus species level identification of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera.
Group Species Status ISA1 - Woodland
ISA2 - Herbaceous + shrubs
ISA3 - Sand ISA5 - Herbaceous + shrub
ISA6 - Rubble
Collembola 1000 200 500
Hemiptera 500 200
Diptera 200 10
Aranea Spiders
Agelenidae Tegenaria agrestis Common 1
Tegenaria sp 1 1
Clubionidae Clubiona sp 1
Dictynidae Dictyna immature 1
Dictyna uncinata Common 1
Dysderidae Drassodes spp 1
Dysdera crocata Common 1
Gnaphosidae Drassodes lapidosus Common 1
Linyphiidae Linyphiidae immature 1
Lepthyphantes tenuis Common 1
Erigone dentipalpis Common 1
216
Table A2.1. Continued
Group Species Status ISA1 ISA2 ISA3 ISA5 ISA6
Oedothorax apicatus Common 1
Walckenaeria immature 1
Megalepthyphantes sp. nova (collinus occidentalis)
* Undescribed species
1 2
Liocranidae Agroeca inopina Local 4 1 1
Lycosidae Lycosidae immature 1
Salticidae Salticus immature 1
Zodariidae Zodarion immature 1
Zodarion italicum proposed Na 4
Total Aranea 15 5 3 1 6
Opiliones Harvestman 3
Coleoptera Beetles
Carabidae Amara aulica (Panz.) common 1 1
Amara convexiuscula v. local 1
Amara eurynota Panz. v.local 1 1
Brachinus crepitans L. Nb 1
Calathus ambiguus Payk. Nb 1 2
Calathus cinctus Mots. v. local 1
Calthus erratus Sahlb. local 1 1
Calathus fuscipes Goeze common 2 1 7 1
Calathus melanocephalus L. common 11 11
217
Table A2.1. Continued
Group Species Status ISA1 ISA2 ISA3 ISA5 ISA6
Harpalus affinis Schr. common 5
Harpalus ardosiacus Luts. Nb 1 3
Harpalus rubripes Duft. common 3
Leistus spinibarbis (Fab.) common 5
Nebria brevicollis (Fab.) common 1 11 13
Notiophilus quadripunctatus Dej. Nb 2
Polistichus connexus Fourc. RDB2 1
Pseudophonus rufipes Degeer common 1
Trechus quadristriatus (Schr.) common 6
Phyllotreta consobrina (Curt.) local 1 2
Coccinellidae Coccinella 7-punctata Lin. common 1 68
Curculionidae Sitona hispidulus (Fab.) common 1
Sitona lineatus (Lin. ) common 1 2
Hydrophilidae Helophorus rufipes (Bosc.) v.local 1 6
Staphylinidae Quedius molochinus (Grav.) common 1 1
Total Coleoptera 11 37 132 1 1
Hymenoptera Bees, Ants wasps
Formicidae Ants 10
Apidae Bees 1
Ichneumonidae Ichneumons 5
Hymenoptera total 5 11
Isopoda Woodlice 10 200 20
218
Table A2.1. Continued
Group Species Status ISA1 ISA2 ISA3 ISA5 ISA6
Pulmonata Slug 10 1
Chilopoda Centipede 5
* Megalepthyphantes spp. nova was first discovered in Britain in 1999 by P.R.Harvey at Minster undercliffs on the Is le of Sheppey. It has subsequently been
recorded at an increasing numbers of sites on shingle and outdoors and indoors in synanthropic situations in Kent, London and Essex. Although close to M. collinus occidentalis, it is thought to be a new undescribed species, which appears to have colonised Britain and is in the process of spreading.
A2.2 - 2011 pitfall trap results
Table A2.2. Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, summer 2011. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Group Species Status ISA1 ISA3 ISA 4 ISA 6
Collembola 2000 1000
Hemiptera 1000 5000 200
Diptera 100 300 500 50
larvae
Aranea Spiders 20 15 10
Opiliones Harvestman 2
Acari Mites 30
COLEOPTERA,
Beetles
Lucanidae Dorcus parallelipipedus 5
Coccinellidae,
Ladybirds Coccinella 7-punctata Lin. common 10 2
Staphylinidae, Rove beetles common 2
219
Table A2.2. Continued
Invertebrate Group Species Status ISA 1 -
Woodland ISA 3 - Sand ISA 4 -
Woodland ISA 6 - Rubble
Total Coleoptera 50 100 20 10
Hymenoptera Bees, Ants wasps
Formicidae Ants 200
Apidae Bees
Bombus terrestris 1
Bombus lucorum 1
Crabronidae Diodontus luperus 2
Pompilidae Priocnemis parvula 1
Ichneumonidae Ichneumons 10
Parasitica 1 1 2
Hymenoptera total 1 214 4 0
Isopoda Woodlice 100 30 20
Gastropoda Slug 100 300 30
Snail 20 15
220
A2.3 - 2012 pitfall trap results
Table A2.3.1. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA1 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Diplocephalus cristatus Araneae 8
Diplostyla concolor Araneae 1
Lepthyphantes tenuis Araneae 4
Meioneta rurestris Araneae 2
Unident. Linyphiidae Araneae 1
Amara eurynota Coleoptera 2 Local
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 10
Dasytes plumbeus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 12
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 2 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Ophonus rufibarbis Coleoptera 2
Pterostichus madidus Coleoptera 2
Unident. Apionidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 10
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. weevil Coleoptera 1
Bethylus fuscicornis Hymenoptera 1 Local
Lasius flavus Hymenoptera 3
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 7
221
Table A 2.3.1. Continued
Species Group Number National status Notes
Myrmecina graminicola Hymenoptera 1 Local
Myrmica sabuleti Hymenoptera 24 Local
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 5
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 5
Table A2.3.2. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA2 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Erigone alet ris Araneae 6 Naturalised
Erigone dentipalpis Araneae 3
Lepthyphantes tenuis Araneae 1
Meioneta rurestris Araneae 5
Phrurolithus festivus Araneae 1
Xysticus kochi Araneae 1 Local
Amara aenea Coleoptera 2
Amara apricaria Coleoptera 1
Amara eurynota Coleoptera 17 Local
Anchomenus dorsalis Coleoptera 1
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 7 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 8 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus cinctus Coleoptera 1 Local
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 56
Calathus melanocephalus Coleoptera 1
Cordylepherus viridis Coleoptera 1 Local
222
Table A 2.3.2. Continued
Species Group Number National status Notes
Cryptocephalus fulvus Coleoptera 2 Local
Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 2
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 2
Harpalus rubripes Coleoptera 1 Local
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 2
Oedomera lurida Coleoptera 1 Local
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Ophonus azureus Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Pterostichus madidus Coleoptera 1
Silpha laevigata Coleoptera 1 Local
Unident. Bembidion sp. Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 4
Unident. Curculionidae Coleoptera 4
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Dolichopidae Diptera 1
Unident. Drosophila sp. Diptera 1
Kalama tricornis Hemiptera 1 Local
Andrena dorsata Hymenoptera 1 Local
Andrena flavipes Hymenoptera 1 Local
Andrena minutula Hymenoptera 1
Anthidium manicatum Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum leucopus Hymenoptera 1 Local
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 9
223
Table A 2.3.2. Continued
Species Group Number National status Notes
Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 3 RDB3 Essex Red Data species/Regionally Important
Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 1
Lasius flavus Hymenoptera 9
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 94
Myrmica scabuleti Hymenoptera 1 Local
Sphecodes crassus Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb
Essex Red Data species/Regionally
Important
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 3
Table A2.3.3. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA3 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Arctosa perita Araneae 1 Local
Diplostyla concolor Araneae 1
Enoplognatha latimana Araneae 1 Local
Erigone alet ris Araneae 2 Naturalised
Erigone atra Araneae 8
Erigone dentipalpis Araneae 15
Lepthyphantes tenuis Araneae 1
Oedothorax fuscus Araneae 1
Oedothorax retusus Araneae 2
Ozyptila sanctuaria Araneae 4 Local
Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1
224
Table A 2.3.3. Continued
Species Group Number National status Notes
Pelecopsis parallela Araneae 2 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 5
Amara apricaria Coleoptera 7
Anisodactylus binotatus Coleoptera 1 Local
Byrrhus pilula Coleoptera 2
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus cinctus Coleoptera 1 Local
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 10
Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 3
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 6
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 2
Loricera pilicornis Coleoptera 1
Ophonus azureus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Scybalicus oblonguisculus Coleoptera 2 RDB1+ Extinct Essex Red Data species
Silpha laevigata Coleoptera 4 Local
Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata Coleoptera 2 Local
Unident. Bembidion sp. Coleoptera 19
Unident. Chrysomelidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 7
Unident. Curculionidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Dyschirius sp. Coleoptera 1
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 17
Unident. Hemiptera Hemiptera 1
Unident. Saldidae Hemiptera 1
225
Table A 2.3.3. Continued
Species Group Number National status Notes
Ammophila sabulosa Hymenoptera 2 Local
Andrena dorsata Hymenoptera 1 Local
Andrena labialis Hymenoptera 3 Local
Andrena minutula Hymenoptera 1
Arachnospila anceps Hymenoptera 1 Local
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 13
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 3
Myrmica sabuleti Hymenoptera 1 Local
Nysson trimaculatus Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important
Oxybelus uniglumis Hymenoptera 1
Philanthus triangulum Hymenoptera 1 RDB2
Sphecodes longulus Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Na Essex Red Data species
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 8
Table A2.3.4. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA4 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Alopecosa barbipes Araneae 2
Diplostyla concolor Araneae 1
Dysdera crocata Araneae 1
Erigone atra Araneae 2
Erigone dentipalpis Araneae 2
Meioneta rurestris Araneae 1
226
Table A 2.3.4. Continued
Species Group Number National status Notes
Ozyptila sanctuaria Araneae 1 Local
Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important
Passaloecus singularis Araneae 1
Phalangium opilio Araneae 3
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 1
Xysticus kochi Araneae 1 Local
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 4 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus cinctus Coleoptera 1 Local
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 18
Calathus melanocephalus Coleoptera 2
Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 1
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 6
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 5
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Poecilus cupreus Coleoptera 3 Local
Silpha laevigata Coleoptera 2 Local
Unident. Apionidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Bembidion sp. Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 8
Unident. Elateridae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 3
Unident. weevil Coleoptera 6
Diodontus luperus Hymenoptera 1 Local
227
Table A 2.3.4. Continued
Species Group Number National status Notes
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 2
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 5
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 3
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 2
Table A2.3.5. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA5 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note. N.B. One pitfall trap was lost within ISA5.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Alopecosa barbipes Araneae 1
Erigone alet ris Araneae 3 Naturalised
Erigone atra Araneae 1
Erigone dentipalpis Araneae 4
Meioneta rurestris Araneae 3
Oedothorax fuscus Araneae 1
Ozyptila sanctuaria Araneae 4 Local
Pardosa agrestis Araneae 2 Notable/Nb
Essex Red Data species/Regionally
important
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 1
Amara apricaria Coleoptera 1
Amara eurynota Coleoptera 2 Local
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 7 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 23
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 5
228
Table A 2.3.5. Continued
Species Group Number National status Notes
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 1 Local
Poecilus cupreus Coleoptera 1 Local
Pterostichus madidus Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 8
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. weevil Coleoptera 5
Unident. Diptera Diptera 2
Anthophora bimaculata Hymenoptera 1 Local
Diodontus luperus Hymenoptera 1 Local
Epyris niger Hymenoptera 1 Unknown
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3 Essex Red Data species/Regionally important
Lasius flavus Hymenoptera 2
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 10
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 1
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 5
Table A2.3.6. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA6 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Diplostyla concolor Araneae 1
Dysdera crocata Araneae 1
Oedothorax retusus Araneae 1
229
Table A 2.3.6. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Phalangium opilio Araneae 3
Talavera aequipes Araneae 1 Local
Tegenaria agrestis Araneae 1 Local
Trochosa ruricola Araneae 2
Unident. Tegenaria sp. Araneae 2
Unident. Trochosa sp. Araneae 1
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 7 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 8
Calathus cinctus Coleoptera 1 Local
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 24
Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 1
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 1
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 6
Lagria hirta Coleoptera 1
Notiophilus biguttatus Coleoptera 1
Pterostichus madidus Coleoptera 6
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 5
Unident. Elateridae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2
Lasius flavus Hymenoptera 1
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 1
230
Table A2.3.7. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA7 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Erigone dentipalpis Araneae 1
Pardosa prativaga Araneae 1
Trachyzelotes pedestris Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 1
Amara eurynota Coleoptera 11 Local
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 12
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 5
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 5
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Ophonus azureus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Ophonus rufibarbis Coleoptera 3
Platydracus stercorarius Coleoptera 1 Local
Scybalicus oblongiusculus Coleoptera 1 RDB1+ Extinct Essex Red Data species
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 1
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 1
Formica cunicularia Hymenoptera 5 Local
Hoplitis spinulosa Hymenoptera 4 Local
Lasioglossum leucozonium Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3
Essex Red Data species/Regionally
important
Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 5 Notable/Na Essex Red Data species/Regionally important
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 3
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 14
231
Table A 2.3.7. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 4
Table A2.3.8. Pitfall trap survey results for ISAs 8, 9 and 10 2012. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target
groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note. N.B.results for ISAs 8,9 and 10 were combined as several pitfall traps were lost. In total five pitfall traps were collected from these soft landscaping areas.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Bathyphantes gracilis Araneae 3
Erigone alet ris Araneae 6 Naturalised
Erigone atra Araneae 1
Erigone dentipalpis Araneae 9
Lepthyphantes tenuis Araneae 2
Oedothorax apicatus Araneae 3 Local
Oedothorax retusus Araneae 1
Ostearius melanopygius Araneae 1 Naturalised
Pardosa agrestis Araneae 11 Notable/Nb
Essex Red Data species/Regionally
important
Pardosa prativaga Araneae 1
Pelecopsis parallela Araneae 1 Local
Amara aenea Coleoptera 1
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 1
Calathus melanocephalus Coleoptera 1
Harpalus rubripes Coleoptera 1 Local
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 2
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2
Lasius flavus Hymenoptera 4
232
Table A 2.3.8. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Lasius niger sens. str. Hymenoptera 3
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 1
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 1
A2.4 - 2013 pitfall trap results
Table A2.4.1. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA1 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Erigone alet ris Araneae 2 Naturalised
Odiellus spinosus Araneae 3 Local
Opilio saxatilis Araneae 4
Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1 Notable/Nb
Essex Red Data species/Regionally
important
Trachyzelotes pedestris Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important
Unident. Alopecosa sp. Araneae 2
Unident. Araneae Araneae 1
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 7
Unident. Pardosa sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Trochosa sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 2
Unident. Zelotine Araneae 1
Amara eurynota Coleoptera 6 Local
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
233
Table A 2.4.1. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 2 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally important
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 7
Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 3
Dorcus parallelipipedus Coleoptera 4 Local
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 3
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 5 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Pterostichus madidus Coleoptera 1
Silpha laevigata Coleoptera 1 Local
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 12
Unident. Ophonus sp. Coleoptera 2
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Lygaeidae Hemiptera 3
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 3
Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3 Essex Red Data species/Regionally important
Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 3
Myrmica sabuleti Hymenoptera 18 Local
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 4
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 2
Unident. Larva Lepidoptera 3
234
Table A2.4.2. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA2 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Arachnospila anceps Araneae 1 Local
Micaria pulicaria Araneae 2
Odiellus spinosus Araneae 1 Local
Opilio saxatilis Araneae 2
Pardosa prativaga Araneae 7
Pardosa pullata Araneae 1
Phalangium opilio Araneae 13
Unident. Araneae Araneae 2
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 43
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 9
Amara apricaria Coleoptera 2
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 5
Calathus melanocephalus Coleoptera 1
Carabus violaceus Coleoptera 3
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 4
Harpalus rubripes Coleoptera 4 Local
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 1
Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 1 Local
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 5 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Poecilus cupreus Coleoptera 1 Local
Unident. Carabidae Coleoptera 4
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 7
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 7
235
Table A 2.4.2. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Heteroptera Hemiptera 1
Bombus terrestris Hymenoptera 1
Brachymeria minuta Hymenoptera 1 Nr
Evagetes crassicornis Hymenoptera 1 Local
Hoplitis spinulosa Hymenoptera 1 Local
Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 3 Notable/Na
Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 20
Megachile maritima Hymenoptera 1
Myrmica sabuleti Hymenoptera 1 Local
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 5
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 3
Unident. Lepidoptera Lepidoptera 7
Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 9
Chorthippus parallelus Orthoptera 1
Table A2.4.3. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA3 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note. N.B. One of the pitfall traps was lost from this survey area.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Arachnospila anceps Araneae 1 Local
Erigone atra Araneae 1
Mitopus morio Araneae 7
Opilio saxatilis Araneae 7
Ozyptila sanctuaria Araneae 1 Local
Ozyptila simplex Araneae 1 Local
236
Table A 2.4.3. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Pardosa prativaga Araneae 1
Phalangium opilio Araneae 31
Tegenaria agrestis Araneae 1 Local
Trochosa ruricola Araneae 1
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 19
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 12
Xysticus kochi Araneae 1 Local
Amara eurynota Coleoptera 1 Local
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 7 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 14
Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 1
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 1
Harpalus rubripes Coleoptera 4 Local
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 1
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 2 Local
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Paradromius linearis Coleoptera 1
Polistichus connexus Coleoptera 1 RDB2 Essex Red Data species
Silpha laevigata Coleoptera 2 Local
Silpha tristis Coleoptera 2
Unident. Carabidae Coleoptera 4
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 32
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 4
237
Table A 2.4.3. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Diptera Diptera 1
Unident. Heteroptera Hemiptera 2
Unident. planthopper Hemiptera 1
Evagetes crassicornis Hymenoptera 2 Local
Formica cunicularia Hymenoptera 2 Local
Hedychridium ardens Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 1
Sphecodes geoffrellus Hymenoptera 1
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 2
Unident. Lepidoptera Lepidoptera 2
Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 4
Chorthippus parallelus Orthoptera 1
Table A2.4.4. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA4 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Agelena labyrinthica Araneae 1
Opilio saxatilis Araneae 24
Pachygnatha degeeri Araneae 1
Pardosa prativaga Araneae 3
Phalangium opilio Araneae 7
Tegenaria agrestis Araneae 1 Local
Unident. Amaurobius sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 45
238
Table A 2.4.4. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 4
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 8
Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 22
Harpalus rubripes Coleoptera 2 Local
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 5 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Poecilus cupreus Coleoptera 4 Local
Scybalicus oblongiusculus Coleoptera 1 RDB1+ Extinct Essex Red Data species
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 7
Unident. Ophonus sp. Coleoptera 1
Unident. Staphinylidae Coleoptera 5
Asiraca clavicornis Hemiptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Hedychridium ardens Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 1
Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 2
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 2
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 3
Unident. Lepidoptera Lepidoptera 1
Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 1
Table A2.4.5. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA5 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Erigone atra Aranaea 1
Micaria pulicaria Aranaea 1
239
Table A 2.4.5. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Opilio saxatilis Aranaea 20
Ozyptila sanctuaria Aranaea 2 Local
Pardosa agrestis Aranaea 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally Important
Pardosa prativaga Aranaea 2
Pardosa pullata Aranaea 1
Phalangium opilio Aranaea 59
Unident. Araneae Aranaea 3
Unident. Drassodes sp. Aranaea 1
Unident. Opiliones Aranaea 81
Unident. Xysticus sp. Aranaea 5
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 5 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 2 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 22
Carabus violaceus Coleoptera 1
Coccinella septempunctata Coleoptera 2
Curtonotus aulicus Coleoptera 25
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 8
Harpalus rubripes Coleoptera 1 Local
Hippodamia variegata Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 7 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Poecilus cupreus Coleoptera 2 Local
Scybalicus oblongiusculus Coleoptera 3 RDB1+ Extinct Essex Red Data species
Silpha laevigata Coleoptera 2 Local
Unident. Carabidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 13
240
Table A 2.4.5. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Curculionidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Longitarsus sp. Coleoptera 1
Unident. Staphinylidae Coleoptera 4
Unident. Diptera Diptera 1
Unident. Sciomyzidae Diptera 12
Kalama tricornis Hemiptera 1 Local
Unident. Heteroptera Hemiptera 2
Andrena dorsata Hymenoptera 1 Local
Andrena flavipes Hymenoptera 1 Local
Arachnospila anceps Hymenoptera 1 Local
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum villosulum Hymenoptera 1
Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 32
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 6
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 4
Unident. Lepidotera Lepidoptera 1
Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 3
Unident. Orthoptera Orthoptera 1
Table A2.4.6. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA6 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae,
Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Acari Acari 1
Opilio saxatilis Araneae 13
241
Table A 2.4.6. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Pardosa agrestis Araneae 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species/Regionally Important
Phalangium opilio Araneae 7
Tegenaria agrestis Araneae 5 Local
Unident. Araneae Araneae 3
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 29
Unident. Tegenaria sp. Araneae 1
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 1
Calathus fuscipes Coloeptera 4
Coccinella septempunctata Coloeptera 2
Curtonotus aulicus Coloeptera 2
Harpalus affinis Coloeptera 1
Harpalus rufipes Coloeptera 2
Hippodamia variegata Coloeptera 8 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Laemostenus terricola Coloeptera 1 Local
Unident. Coleoptera Coloeptera 3
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 2
Unident. Heteroptera Hemiptera 2
Formica cunicularia Hymenoptera 6 Local
Formica fusca Hymenoptera 5
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 2
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 1
242
Table A2.4.7. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA7 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Alopecosa pulverulenta Araneae 1
Diplostyla concolor Araneae 1
Mitopus morio Araneae 1
Opilio saxatilis Araneae 5
Pardosa prativaga Araneae 5
Phalangio opilio Araneae 7
Tegenaria agrestis Araneae 1 Local
Unident. Araneae Araneae 2
Unident. Lycosidae Araneae 2
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 31
Unident. Xysticus sp. Araneae 8
Xysticus cristatus Araneae 1
Brachinus crepitans Coleoptera 3 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 13
Carabus violaceus Coleoptera 2
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 3
Harpalus rubripes Coleoptera 2 Local
Oedemera lurida Coleoptera 2 Local
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Silpha laevigata Coleoptera 5 Local
Unident. Carabidae Coleoptera 3
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 16
Unident. Curculionidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Staphinylidae Coleoptera 27
Unident. Diptera Diptera 1
243
Table A 2.4.7. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Dolichopidae Diptera 1
Unident. Sciomyzidae Diptera 1
Andrena flavipes Hymenoptera 2 Local
Anthophora bimaculata Hymenoptera 1
Bombus lucorum Hymenoptera 1
Bombus pascuorum Hymenoptera 1
Bombus pratorum Hymenoptera 1
Bombus terrestris Hymenoptera 1
Formica cunicularia Hymenoptera 6 Local
Hoplitis spinulosa Hymenoptera 2 Local
Lasioglossum malachurus Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb
Lasioglossum minutissimum Hymenoptera 1
Lasioglossum pauperatum Hymenoptera 1 RDB3 Essex Red Data species/Regionally Important
Lasioglossum pauxillum Hymenoptera 3 Notable/Na Lasioglossum pauxillum
Lasius niger sens. Str. Hymenoptera 3
Myrmica sabuleti Hymenoptera 8 Local
Myrmica scabrinodis Hymenoptera 23
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 4
Maniola jurtina Lepidoptera 3
Unident. Lepidoptera Lepidoptera 6
Chorthippus brunneus Orthoptera 8
Chorthippus parallelus Orthoptera 2
244
Table A2.4.8. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA8a 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Erigone alet ris Araneae 4 Naturalised
Lepthyphantes tenuis Araneae 4
Oedothorax apicatus Araneae 3 Local
Oedothorax retusus Araneae 4
Pardosa prativaga Araneae 1
Phalangium opilio Araneae 1
Unident. Araneae Araneae 3
Unident. Linyphiidae Araneae 1
Unident. Lycosidae Araneae 2
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 2
Amara eurynota Coleoptera 11 Local
Calathus fuscipes Coleoptera 1
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 4
Unident. Bembidion sp. Coleoptera 1
Unident. Carabidae Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 8
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 23
Unident. Diptera Diptera 4
Unident. Lygaeidae Hemiptera 1
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 4
Unident. Lacewing Neuroptera 1
245
Table A2.4.9. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA9a 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Acari Acari 1
Erigone alet ris Araneae 8
Lepthyphantes tenuis Araneae 2
Oedothorax apicatus Araneae 1 Local
Opilio saxatilis Araneae 1
Ostearius melanopygius Araneae 2 Naturalist
Pardosa prativaga Araneae 1
Unident. Araneae Araneae 2
Unident. Lycosidae Araneae 1
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 1
Amara eurynota Coleoptera 9 Local
Calathus ambiguus Coleoptera 1 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Calathus cinctus Coleoptera 1 Local
Calathus melanocephalus Coleoptera 1
Harpalus affinis Coleoptera 1
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 6
Ophonus ardosiacus Coleoptera 2 Notable/Nb Essex Red Data species
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 12
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 24
Unident. Diptera Diptera 5
Unident. Heteroptera Hemiptera 1
Unident. Lygaeidae Hemiptera 5
Andrena pilipes sens. Str. Hymenoptera 1 Notable/Nb
Essex Red Data species/regionally
important
246
Table A 2.4.9. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Myrmecina graminicola Hymenoptera 1 Local
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 5
Unident. Larva Lepidoptera 2
Table A2.4.10. Pitfall trap survey results for ISA10 2013. Tables include counts of all species level identifications of individuals from target groups
Araneae, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera, plus additional species of note. N.B. One of the pitfall traps was lost from this survey area.
Species Group Number National status Notes
Erigone alet ris Araneae 14 Naturalised
Erigone atra Araneae 2
Erigone dentipalpis Araneae 3
Lepthyphantes tenuis Araneae 1
Mitopus morio Araneae 1
Oedothorax apicatus Araneae 1 Local
Oedothorax fuscus Araneae 1
Oedothorax retusus Araneae 1
Phalangium opilio Araneae 3
Unident. Linyphiidae Araneae 2
Unident. Opiliones Araneae 1
Harpalus rufipes Coleoptera 2
Pterostichus madidus Coleoptera 1
Unident. Coleoptera Coleoptera 8
Unident. Staphylinidae Coleoptera 18
Unident. Diptera Diptera 3
Unident. Dolichopodidae Diptera 1
247
Table A 2.4.10. Continued Species Group Number National status Notes
Unident. Heteroptera Hemiptera 1
Unident. Planthopper Hemiptera 1
Myrmica ruginodis Hymenoptera 1
Sphecodes puncticeps Hymenoptera 1 Unknown
Unident. Parasitica Hymenoptera 8
Unident. Larva Lepidoptera 4
248
Appendix 3
Brownfield habitat assessment form (Roberts et al. 2006) Report type:
Site Visit: X Desktop Study:
Confidential: No
Site Name: Barking Riverside Office Landscaping
Surveyor: Dr Stuart Connop
Date: 06/08/2010 (survey date)
Site Location: Renwick Road, Barking, East London
Site Position: TQ 4691 8223
Owner/Manager: Barking Riverside Ltd
Local Authority: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Description: currently being developed as a new sustainable community. Aim of development is to incorporate existing brownfield diversity into the community landscape. One of the first stages of this is to design office landscaping on a brownfield theme incorporating habitat characteristics typical of this habitat.
Site History: Previously a coal power station with extensive areas of PFA lagoons, rough grassland and wetland areas. Considerable biodiversity interest prior to development. Ecological survey data available as part of planning application
Area: approx 0.5ha
Time Derelict: Actively managed as brownfield habitat
Risk: Current risk low
249
Site Access:
None: Part: All: X (* choose one)
Access Notes: Permission from Barking Riverside to establish a monitoring protocol for Natural England
Viewed from:
On site: X Site boundary: other: (please specify)
Current Activity:
Bulldozing/clearance
Fly tipping
Foot traffic
BMX bikes/motorcycles/cars
Small scale domestic tipping
None
Other: X (active landscape management)
Substrates:
Clay/loam X
Stones X
Rubble X
Concrete/tarmac X
Sand X
Other: Recycled glass/boulders/metal sheeting
Wet Areas:
Permanent water
River
Marsh
Seasonally wet areas X
Canal
Stream
Saline
250
Other: No wet areas incorporated into design although ephemeral wet areas have developed. Site is situated close to Thames and has numerous creeks and ditches nearby.
Vegetation
Vegetation types: Present Abundant
Bare ground X
Tall herb X
Scrub X
Sparse vegetation X
Creeping herb X
Tree X
Lichen/bryophyte 'heath'
Over-wintering herbaceous stems and fruitheads X
Other:
Plant diversity:
Not assessed Low: Medium: X High: (* choose one)
Flower diversity:
Not assessed Low: X Medium: High: (* choose one)
Flower abundance:
Not assessed Low: X Medium: High: (* choose one)
Vegetation present: Present Abundant
Annual mercury X
Crane's-bills
Drought-stressed bramble X
Fleabanes
Gorse X
Knapweeds X
Labiates X
Legumes X
Mallows X
251
Present Abundant
Mayweeds X
Oxeye daisy X
Ragworts X
Reeds
Sorrels
St. John's Worts
Stonecrops
Thistles
Toadflaxes
Weld or Mignonette
White Bryony
Wild carrot X
Wormwood
Yellow asteraceae X
Yellow crucifers X
Yellow/white umbels X
Other: X (See species list Appendix A)
Negative types:
Bracken
Buddleja X X
Japanese knotweed
Nettles X
Sycamore X
Other:
Invertebrates:
Low: Medium: X High:
252
Appendix 4
Location of fixed-point markers at Barking Riverside offices, Barking, East London.
N.B. Fixed-point marker for BR4 is the same as for BR3; Fixed-point marker for BR8 is the
same as for BR7; Fixed-point marker for BR12 is the same as for BR11; Fixed-point marker
for BR15 is the same as for BR14. (Aerial photo © Getmapping.com)