3 STEVE AYLWARD A LIVING LANDSCAPE FOR SUFFOLK

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

A LIVING LANDSCAPE FOR SUFFOLK STEVE AYLWARD

On the edge of Breckland, at Lakenheath, there are a number of sites which illustrate where nature reserves on their own are not always the answer to preserving our special wildlife. Lakenheath Poors Fen is a particularly good example. This site has been a wildlife nature reserve since 1965, it is a site we have known for a long time, once part of the great Lakenheath Common which extended over a vast area. Even in 1945, there was still a substantial part of Lakenheath Common left and Lakenheath Poors Fen. The plant list was impressive: plants like Grass of Parnassus were described as being abundant. In 1961, Fen Violets were common, another plant which in this region is really struggling now. Even in 1988, Marsh Pea was still well established on the site. Yet by 1992, none of these species existed on the reserve. They had all been lost despite the site being in protective ownership. The site has been whittled away over the years so that today all that remains is a tiny fragment. But it is what has happened around this site that has been the problem. Intensive agriculture, deepening of all the drains and changes in ground water have meant this reserve became ever more isolated both in terms of its geographic spread and hydrologically to the point where it could no longer sustain itself.

Another example in this area is Pashford Poors Fen – famous because it was the only place in the UK where one could find the Pashford pot beetle (Cryptocephalus exiguus). Although of limited distribution, there were once a

Figure 1. SWT Reserves on the edge of Breckland, near Lakenheath.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 48 4

from around these sites they became hydrologically isolated, and eventually hydrologically damaged. As a result, all their interesting species were lost. This is what has driven us towards thinking that we cannot work on just a reserve basis. Reserves have a limit in the landscape unless you make sure that they are part of that landscape.

The Trust’s approach to this issue is shown in Plate 3. The county has been roughly divided up on geographical grounds; some areas are much larger than others, some are quite small geographically, the valley fens, for example, which are restricted to a very narrow part of the Waveney and Little Ouse valley. Similarly, the Suffolk Broads again are geographically restricted. These are examples of areas where the Trust is working to bring about the living landscape change that we hope will happen and will revive our wildlife.

Looking at the valley fens, a historic landscape which was once a great collection of commons and fens; contiguous habitat which extended along the river valleys has become highly fragmented and isolated. Trust reserves in this area range from large sites like Redgrave & Lopham Fen of well over 400 acres to smaller ones like Thelnetham Fen which is isolated, fragmented, and potentially very vulnerable. Other organisations are also working in this area, the Little Ouse Headwaters Project is acquiring land which is starting to fill in the gaps. The Trust has also been extending some of its reserves. Redgrave and Lopham Fen has been extended substantially as has Market Weston Fen. This is the way in which we hope land acquisition will play an important role, in certain circumstances, for rebuilding the links between sites. If you add in what private landowners are doing via the higher-level stewardship scheme, which are starting to fill in some of the gaps, agri-environment schemes have the potential to change and reverse the declines in some of these areas. It is about building a landscape again using a whole variety of methods.

Many readers will be familiar with the work of Dr Helen Smith on the raft

Figure 2. The Pashford pot beetle (Cryptocephalus exiguus).

number of sites. But it hung on at Pashford as it disappeared from all the other sites and by the 1950s it was the only remaining site in the country. Last recorded in 1986, a survey in 2000 failed to find it. Very little was known about it and it is now thought to be extinct in the UK. When a species is restricted to one site and little known about it, it becomes extremely vulnerable. Another site in the same part of the county, Hurst Fen and Howlett Hills, used to be a botanically interesting remnant fen but drying out has shrunk the peat and completely ruined the site. Isolation of these sites has been incredibly damaging and no amount of effort concentrated on that reserve alone would have saved it from its fate. As the ground water ebbed away

5 STEVE AYLWARD A LIVING LANDSCAPE FOR SUFFOLK

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

spider. At Redgrave and Lopham Fen the raft spider is assumed to have used most of the site becoming evermore restricted to small areas. The risk is that it will go the way of the Pashford pot beetle. A huge amount of work has gone into developing ways of helping the spider, and not just at Redgrave and Lopham Fen. Initially the raft spider was reintroduced into other parts of Redgrave and Lopham Fen. But since this would make it dependent on a single site, it was decided to introduce the raft spider onto new sites. In the last year or so, the spider has been translocated to new locations, Carlton and Castle marshes, and a quite different grazing marsh habitat, not a fen habitat. This habitat is very similar to that of Pevensey Levels (in East Sussex) which is one of only two other sites where the raft spider is found. The raft spider now has potentially a much brighter future, not dependent on a single site and, if good populations can be established on the Broads reserves, then the future is looking very positive. The Trust in working in a number of ways in the Valley Fens; land acquisition is important, but working with partners is equally important.

Moving across to the Suffolk Broads, Carlton Marshes, again is a very distinctive landscape and one where the Trust has historically had a substantial involvement. The reserves at Castle Marshes, Carlton Marshes and Oulton Marshes between them have an interesting mix of grazing marsh, fen meadow and reed bed; diverse habitats, but again isolated and fragmented in the past. A lot of our work now is about trying to fill in the gaps, making these sites bigger and more robust.

In the last five years, the Trust has been busy acquiring land where there have been opportunities to do so (see blue areas on Plate 4). We are starting to fill in the gaps: by 2008, Oulton Marshes had grown substantially and we

Figure 3. Fen raft spider Dolomedes plantarius, Photo: Helen Smith.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 48 6

are now building up a large contiguous block of wetland habitat. We are also working with our neighbours. The green areas (Plate 4) are in private ownership but they are in higher level stewardship, which means that the management is right. Because we can’t buy all this land, working with neighbours, encouraging, helping and providing support, is an important mechanism for delivering the sort of landscape scale change we are seeking. At Oulton Marshes we have acquired a lot of land. They were essentially dry pastures and, despite being on the flood plain in what would have been naturally a wet environment, they were kept relatively dry. This is what landscape scale change is about. We have been working in partnership with the Broads Authority and Broadland Environmental Services (BESL) to rebuild flood banks in the broads delivering substantial change on the ground, re-wetting these marshes, making them much more diverse and giving them much more structure. This provides more open water and associated habitats, so that this site can develop into a mosaic of reed bed and marsh and lots of connecting wetland corridors, making it a far more interesting and diverse place. The dykes are especially important; they are effectively the connecting veins that run through this site. Restoring them has been a priority and the response has been very impressive. It doesn’t take long (only a year or two) before plants like frogbit return after one of these ditches has been restored, and water soldier, a plant that is very strongly associated with the Norfolk hawker dragonfly. These plants are dormant, just there waiting for the right opportunity and the right management. Again, it is a similar process of acquiring land, but also working with our neighbours and with other people to try to rebuild a landscape beyond the bounds of the Trust reserve.

Figure 4. Oulton Marshes.

7 STEVE AYLWARD A LIVING LANDSCAPE FOR SUFFOLK

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

Moving down the coast to Dunwich, we have adopted a different approach. Here we are working in partnership with the Forestry Commission. A few years ago all the conservation organisations that own land on the coast got together. Much of the land in this area is already under protective ownership: Minsmere, the Walberswick complex, Aldringham Walks, land around Sizewell power station, there is a lot of land which is in conservation management. We started to think that there must be opportunities to work together here. Interestingly, Dunwich Forest – a large block of undesignated land owned by the Forestry Commission, has become a great focus of activity for the last few years.

The forest at Dunwich is mostly conifer plantation and the amount of open space is very limited. There are real barriers to wildlife (dense conifer stands) which make this site quite impermeable. There are some areas of broad-leaf woodland, but again no links. One of the principal aims of this work with the Forestry Commission is to try and link up to make the forest more permeable. The 30-year vision for Dunwich is to slowly, but completely, remove the conifers, to allow broadleaf woodland to replace it in part, and to create a natural mosaic of grazed broadleaf wood pasture, areas of heath and wet woodland along the northern edge. The RSPB is working in another part of the Forestry Commission holding to the south of Dunwich Forest, with a different approach aimed at heathland recreation. Within the forest itself the priority has been ride widening to make the it more permeable. We have a herd of Dartmoor ponies which are playing an important role naturally grazing the rides and glades without the need for mechanical intervention. This work will benefit species like the white-letter hairstreak. There is quite a lot of elm scattered around Dunwich Forest and, as the conifers come out, there will be more opportunities for elm to colonise. Dunwich is also extremely important for reptiles, and adder is one of the species that will benefit from more open space and structure. What is really important here is the partnership working aspect, the RSPB’s work re-creating areas of heathland and linking them up with wetland heath and the Trusts work in the forest are making sure that Dunwich plays its part in a connected landscape of important wildlife sites.

Moving further south, the Trust has been involved in the Sandlings for a very long time. After great investment, most of the heathland reserves that we look after are actually in very good condition. Once again, we have the possibility to think of opportunities outside the reserves’ boundaries. Plate 5 shows the protected areas in the Sandlings; there are already large blocks of protected habitat. Closer examination shows that there are lots of ‘bits’ of heathland, a few substantial areas, Sutton Common and Tunstall and Blaxhall Commons are still relatively large intact areas of heathland, but otherwise all the rest of the heathland fragments are forest rides and the like.

The Silver-studded blue butterfly is a good example of a species which can benefit from very specific targeted work. It is not a very mobile species and will not fly for miles in search of new suitable habitat. At best, it will range for a hundred metres, and it doesn’t like barriers. There are certainly good colonies on the heathlands on Sutton and Hollesley Commons but there are

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 48 8

and this does have an adverse effect on the wildlife. Nightjar, for example, show a distribution that is biased away from the areas which are most intensely used by people. There is a similar story with woodlark and even more so with the Dartford warbler with the birds largely staying away from

Figure 5. Silver-studded Blue (Plebejus argus).

also real opportunities to increase their spread. This is where our work is taking us now, linking up and trying to make better use of the forest rides which the Forestry Commission is opening up. There is no reason why, as these rides become wider and more heathery, the silver-studded blue won’t colonise and move into the forest.

The other interesting bit of work in the Sandlings is how people fit in. Figure 6 shows how much access there is. The forests are very accessible (many paths and tracks) yet the areas with the highest numbers of visitors are mostly the heathland areas. What this illustrates is how polarised the use of this area is – people choose to walk on the heathland areas preferentially rather than the forest

Figure 6. Path network in the South Sandlings

9 STEVE AYLWARD A LIVING LANDSCAPE FOR SUFFOLK

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

the areas of heaths intensively used by people. The challenge here is to try to redistribute the way people use the site and also to change the landscape as a whole to provide more opportunities for the birds. Partnership working, particularly in this case with the Forestry Commission is very important in terms of developing a landscape which is good for both wildlife and in this case, very much for people.

The South Suffolk woods are another area where we are focusing our efforts. Here we are using the dormouse to help develop that vision. Figure 7 shows dormouse distribution in the county with a cluster of sites just north of the Stour Valley where our work led by Simone Bullion has been focused. This is where once again the whole landscape approach comes into its own. Where there are well-connected dormouse sites, the dormice can move freely around the landscape. There can be very good habitats not far away but because they are dis-connected, the dormice are not present. There is also the issue of small, isolated dormice populations. By taking a landscape-scale approach one can address these issues. How do you link up areas which are the right habitat, but where dormice are absent? How do you ensure that isolation doesn’t result in the decline of populations over time?

By mapping existing populations and suitable habitat we can predict where we need to be focusing our efforts, where the opportunities are to either link habitats or link populations, and where we should be looking for dormice. It’s about building a landscape scale picture, looking at dormouse distribution over a wider area rather than focusing on individual sites. Some of the work that has already been done has shown that by planting hedges in the right places, it doesn’t take long to create links for species like dormice. For example: a few years ago the dormouse was introduced into Priestley

Figure 7. Dormouse distribution in Suffolk.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 48 10

now is to try and link with other woodlands to the north and the west which are currently isolated but which are perfectly good habitat for dormice. Again, this is about working with our neighbouring landowners to put in place the physical links which will allow dormice to move through the landscape. It is largely about working with other landowners and organisations where predictive mapping has been shown to be an incredibly useful tool.

Figure 8. Dormouse

Muscardinus avellanarius

Wood, a Woodland Trust reserve just south of Needham Market. Interestingly, they made their way very quickly out of Priestley Wood and colonised the adjacent Bonny Wood (Fig. 9). This demonstrates the best outcome for dormouse conservation where, not only do we get a population re-established, but then it starts to move out of that area and colonise other suitable habitats. At Bradfield Woods where again there was a reintroduction of dormice, we are hoping that we could do the same. In the last few years we have had a very good population of dormice established in the woods but they are relatively isolated. The challenge

Figure 9. Movement of Dormice from introduction site at Priestley Wood into nearby suitable habitat.

PriestleyWood

BonnyWood

11 STEVE AYLWARD A LIVING LANDSCAPE FOR SUFFOLK

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

The biggest part of Suffolk is of course its farmland, the heart of Suffolk. This is probably where we face the greatest challenges in terms of rebuilding a well-connected landscape. The SWT’s Grove Farm reserve near Thurston is a typical arable farm on relatively heavy soils with large fields and a good network of hedges. When the Trust acquired the site, there was a scatter of ponds. Most of the ponds on the farm were completely overgrown and only two were of any real interest, ponds which supported Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus). This is typical in Suffolk, these newts are hanging on in very small numbers and are often restricted to one or two ponds. What we have done in this instance is to restore a number of the ponds on the farm to create a good newt habitat. Then the farm was entered into environmental stewardship and we are using field corners and field margins to link up the ponds so that the newts can now easily move around the farm and colonise the ponds which are being restored (Fig. 10). We also went a step further and dug a number of new ponds so we now have a site where we have a large number of ponds in varying states of succession. This ensures that we always have the right conditions for these newts. This work does not just stop at Grove Farm, which sits in the middle of a huge landscape, we have to look for opportunities outside of this farm reserve.

When you look at the county as a whole, there are a huge numbers of ponds. Plate 6 shows the density of ponds concentrated in north-east Suffolk. The newt records are widely distributed; but what needs to happen is a

Figure 10. Using field corners and margins to link up ponds on the SWT Reserve at Grove Farm, Thurston.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 48 (2012)

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 48 12

going to be the Trust’s big focus over the next few years – a networking nature project which will work with local communities to try and increase the density and the number of wildlife sites across the county.

So to sum up, a living landscape is about creating a well-connected landscape where wildlife can flourish, where the issues of isolation, the death knell for so many populations of vulnerable individual species, are tackled. It is one which the Trust will not achieve on its own. Partnership working with communities, farmers and other people is critical to that future.

Steve Aylward Head of Property and Projects, Suffolk Wildlife Trust Brooke House, The Green, Ashbocking, Suffolk IP6 9JY

Steve Aylward has worked in conservation management for Suffolk Wildlife Trust since 1990 in a number of different roles. Currently Head of Property and Projects, Steve leads on the Trust’s land acquisition projects and Living Landscapes strategy. A major part of this role has been shaping large-scale grazing projects such as Dunwich Forest and the Sandlings Heaths. Prior to this, Steve managed several large-scale habitat restoration projects including the initial restoration of Oulton and Carlton Marshes. A strong advocate of a landscape-scale approach to addressing environmental change, Steve is continuing to develop new projects in Suffolk.

Figure 11. Barn Owl Tyto alba

repeat of what we have done at Grove Farm on as many farms as possible. We can build up populations by ensuring that we have more than just one or two ponds in good condition on each farm. By having a number of ponds, sustainable populations can survive. What is good for great crested newts is also good for many other creatures. For the Trust, farmland conservation work is about using our iconic species. SWT’s barn owl project has also been a great success because again, it is a species that people focus on and like to see in the countryside. A farm landscape with field margins and field corners which is good for barn owls is also good for many other birds and mammals as well as invertebrates. The thing about this kind of work is working with communities. This is

Plate 3: Suffolk Wildlife Trust Living Landscape areas (p. 4.)

Plate 4: Living Landscapes in the Broads: SWT Reserves (blue) and privately-owned areas under Higher Level Stewardship (green). (p. 5 & 6).

Plate 5: Protected areas in the South Sandlings. (p. 7).

Plate 6: Pond density and Great crested newt records. (p. 11).