150417 our heaths final by Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Our Heaths A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Clive Chatters April 2015

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Acknowledgements. We acknowledge with thanks the use of historic images of the New Forest made available by the Christopher Tower Library in Lyndhurst and also to Ken Dolbear for his photograph of the Silver Studded Blue butterfly. Thanks are also due to the members of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trustâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Conservation and Science Committee who commented on the emerging report. My particular thanks go to Committee member Neil Sanderson for his insights into heathland lichen communities and their responses to fire and grazing.

Publication Details This document should be cited as: Chatters, C. (2015) Our Heaths: a summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Maps reproduced by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (Ordnance Survey licence no. 100015632) with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright 2015. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Cover image. Mares on Beaulieu Heath, New Forest ÂŠ Clive Chatters Published by: Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Beechcroft House Vicarage Lane Curdridge Hampshire SO32 2DP A company limited by guarantee & registered in England No. 676313; Charity No. 201081.

Document Control Version

Author name

Date

Signed off by

Date

Draft

Clive Chatters

27.03.2015

Sarah Jackson

07.04.2015

Final

Clive Chatters

15.04.2015

Sarah Jackson

16.04.2015

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Summary There is no single landscape type, habitat or species which characterises heathland. In Hampshire we are fortunate to have enough of our heathland landscapes surviving intact to understand something of their character over recent history. This understanding enables us to interpret heathlands where they survive as fragments of their former selves. The wildlife communities of heathland may be regarded as largely natural communities that were found within the open habitats of our prehistoric landscape. In recent history the extent and combinations of those habitats is the result of the work of people. By understanding ecological history and processes, together with understanding how people have worked heathland landscapes in the past, we are guided in how to care for heaths in the future. Large grazing animals are a natural part of our wildlife and the challenge to the site manager is to find grazing systems which provide a modern analogy to natural grazing systems. Practical management decisions benefit from being able to draw on sound science. There are many studies of individual aspects of heathland grazing. What is lacking is a scientifically controlled and truly replicated series of experiments which investigate the relationship of grazing with the breadth of heathland biodiversity. The lack of such data should not be a barrier to continuing to make decisions. In managing heathlands the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust starts from a position of seeking to safeguard the dynamics of a heathlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecosystem rather than focusing on the needs of individual species. In any ecosystem most of the species present will never be known to us. Heathlands include habitats associated with sudden and violent physical changes. Catastrophes can be natural events and need not have disastrous or unhappy conclusions. A challenge for conservation managers is how to accommodate such catastrophes. There are differences between â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;naturalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; grazing and grazing with domesticated animals. These differences will result in differences to the character of habitats and the species they support. Whilst there are differences, the principle ecological processes remain the same. Evidence in the form of historic documents assists us in understanding the character of the heaths we manage. The management of heaths is determined not only by evidence but also the cumulative knowledge of generations of managers. As with most other decisions the management of heathlands is ultimately a matter of judgement based on evidence and experience in an imperfect world.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5 1.1 What Is A Heathland? ...................................................................................... 5 2. THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF OUR HEATHS .......................................... 8 2.1 After The Ice .................................................................................................... 9 3. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND GRAZING HEATHLAND ................................... 12 3.1 Ecological Theory .......................................................................................... 12 3.2 Evidence Relating To Heathland Species And Communities ......................... 14 3.2.1 Birds ........................................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Invertebrates .............................................................................................. 15 3.2.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ............................................................................ 16 3.2.4 Fungi .......................................................................................................... 17 3.2.5 Vegetation .................................................................................................. 17 3.2.6 Vascular Plants........................................................................................... 20 4. FIRE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES ............................................................... 22 4.1 Fire ................................................................................................................ 22 4.2 Gross Disturbance ......................................................................................... 23 4.3 Cutting And Mowing ...................................................................................... 24 4.4 Herbicides ..................................................................................................... 25 5. EVIDENCE RELATING TO GRAZING ANIMALS ............................................... 26 5.1 Differences Between Grazing By Wild And Domesticated Animals ................ 26 5.2 Differences Between Domesticated Animals ................................................. 26 5.2.1 Species and species mix ............................................................................ 26 5.2.2 Breed.......................................................................................................... 27 5.2.3 Gender ....................................................................................................... 28 5.2.4 Age ............................................................................................................. 28 5.3 The Home Range .......................................................................................... 28 6. HISTORIC ECOLOGY AND DOCUMENTARY SOURCES ................................ 31 7. EVIDENCE, EXPERIENCE AND JUDGEMENT ................................................. 33 8. FRANCIS ROSE AND COLIN TUBBS ............................................................... 34 9. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 35 10. REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 36

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

1. INTRODUCTION This report outlines the scientific and historic evidence the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust ‘The Trust’ draws on when managing heaths. The report focusses on ‘why’ we manage heaths, rather than ‘how’ we manage them. The experience and evidence we draw on in making our management decisions comes from across the heathland landscapes of north-west Europe. Management decisions are not solely related to science and history but include other factors such as the aspirations of the heathlands’ owners, animal welfare, archaeology, economics, aesthetics and access. However these other issues fall outside the scope of this report. This report is accompanied by references. This is not a definitive list of the literature but is offered to guide further reading.

Figure 1: Matley Heath: New Forest © Clive Chatters

1.1 What Is A Heathland? There is no single landscape type, habitat or species which characterises heathland. Historically the word ‘heath’ was loosely applied to great sweeps of natural vegetation in open lowland landscapes. There are many ecological processes common to such habitats irrespective of the chemical composition of their bedrock (Price, 2003). It was early in the twentieth century that ecologists started using the word ‘heaths’ to describe wild open landscapes on generally acidic soils and ‘downs’ for similar places on the chalk hills, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. In Hampshire we are fortunate to have enough of our heathland landscapes surviving intact to understand something of their character over recent history. This understanding enables us to interpret heathlands where they survive as fragments of their former selves. Heathlands are much more than just a purple carpet of heather with stands of bracken, birch and gorse. Heathlands vary in character within a single historic landscape and also at a county, national and European scale (Gimmingham, 1961). There is a risk of shifting base-lines (Pauly, 1995) in our understanding of heathlands. Each generation tends to take what they find as their baseline of understanding and so may miss longer-term changes. The use of the word ‘Heath’ to define vegetation dominated by heathers is fairly recent. In 1977 Derek Ratcliffe included the grass-dominated heathlands of the

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Brecklands within his definition of heath (Ratcliffe, 1977). More recent definitions seek an obligatory percentage of heathers in vegetation for it to be classified as a heath. In doing so, much of the diversity of heathlands is at risk of being overlooked and under-regarded (Sanderson N. A., 1998). In seeking to understand and manage heathlands the Trust looks to be inspired by exemplary heaths to remind us of the richness of their character.

Figure 2: Therfield Heath, Hertfordshire, one of eastern England’s finest chalk grasslands. © Clive Chatters

Within Hampshire’s heathland landscapes are lush pastures along floodplains (Figure 3), tightly grazed swards of village greens and seasonally parched grasslands. Heathers are present as continuously cropped carpets intertwined with lichen, as uniform stands of dwarf shrubs or as branches of heather drawn up straggling through thorn-scrub. In less sharply drained areas there are marshes and bogs with lakes and ponds. In the midst of winter the heath may be as much standing water as it is land. Shadows of the past are present with pits and fields, burial grounds and military works being absorbed back into the heath. Track-ways and gateways, both historic and contemporary, are a focus for trampling livestock and the habitats they support. Whilst heathlands tend to be considered as open landscapes the enclosed farms within which they are set are integral to their character and function. The open habitats of heathland are seldom found in isolation. Heathlands frequently grade into grazed woodlands including the holly holms of the open heath and the old growth oaks and beeches of wood pastures (Figure 4). All of these elements and the relationships between them change over time, the very nature of heathland is bound up with dynamism and diversity

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 3: Longwater lawn on Whitefield Moor, New Forest ÂŠ Clive Chatters

The challenge to conservationists is to restore ecological processes so that the dynamism which has maintained the heaths over the centuries can enable the expression of their future character. Within the context of a busy part of southern England we seek to restore analogies of natural ecological processes so that wildlife can respond to future changes to the environment. The heathland landscapes and habitats of today are cultural in their origin with deeper evolutionary roots going back into prehistory. By understanding ecological history and processes, together with how people have worked heathland landscapes in the past, we are guided in how to care for the heaths in the future.

Figure 4: A mosaic of heathland habitats on Whitefield Moor, New Forest ÂŠ Clive Chatters

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

2. THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF OUR HEATHS It is difficult for us to comprehend geological history. However, to understand the wildlife habitats of today we need to appreciate how our landscape has developed over many hundreds of thousands of years. The geological period in which we live is called the quaternary. This period spans the last two and a half million years. The quaternary is characterised by a series of expansions and contractions of ice sheets from the polar regions. These periods of freezing and thawing are popularly known as the ice ages. Archaeological remains from the ice ages show that each time the climate was sufficiently warm to support plants then the land became colonised by large animals. Grazing animals moved into these landscapes from the milder south, as did the predators which hunted them. For most of this time Britain was not an island but part of what is now continental Europe and so there were few natural barriers to migration. Some of the earliest remains of people in Britain come from Boxgrove in what is now the coastal plain of the eastern Solent. There were people living here about half a million years ago during a warm phase of the ice ages. The climate was not significantly different then than it is now. The landscape was a treeless plain with elephants, rhinoceros, hyena and lions in addition to our more familiar red and roe deer. That open flat land gave way to the much more tree covered rising ground of the hills which were later to become the South Downs. What was different is that our ancestors probably had no greater influence on the ecosystem than any other animal of their scale and strength (Pitts & Roberts, 1998). At the height of the most recent glaciation some 25,000 to 15,000 years ago, the mammals of the Avon Valley near Salisbury included woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, reindeer and musk ox. As the climate warmed these creatures of the tundra steppes were replaced by species of milder climates including auroch (wild cattle), elk, beaver, red and roe deer together with the predatory wolves, lynx and bear. (Yalden D. , 1999).

Figure 5: An ice age image of a wild horse, Creswell Crags, Nottinghamshire ÂŠ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ochre_Horse.jpg

With the exception of the large mammals many of the plants, animals and insects of the warm periods of the ice ages would be recognisable to a modern naturalist (Svenning & Sandom, 2014). Archaeological remains of plants prove the persistence of many characteristic heathland species through the ice ages. These remains not only include heathers but more exacting plants of open heathland habitats such as clubmosses, a range of ferns including pillwort (Figure 6), moonwort and adderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tongue as well sundews and violets . The vegetation of the warmer periods of ice ages appears to be very much like our wildlife-rich habitats of today. The communities of plants and animals within which individual species live appear to be remarkably persistent across great parts of north-west Europe and over immense periods of time (Godwin, 1975) (Tansley, 1949).

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 6: Pillwort ferns require well illuminated bare open heathland habitats. © Clive Chatters

For much of the last million years there is evidence that people were a part of these great migrations (Roebroeks, 2006, Parfit, et.al 2010). Scientific opinion varies as to what degree the earliest of these people were like us, as the modern human was still evolving. We do know that these people lived and hunted in groups using the stone tools which they made. The art work which survives from the later phases of the ice age, from some 40,000 years ago, demonstrates that by then the modern mind was fully developed. The artists have given us thrilling images of large grazing animals and the animals and people who hunted them (Cook, 2013). People are as much a part of the natural history of the British Isles as the other mammals which migrated here as the ice retreated.

2.1 After The Ice The latest ten thousand years of landscape history is inextricably bound up with people. The first people to recolonize England after the retreat of the ice still used stone-age technology to hunt and gather food. Their population grew over a period of some 5000 years and their technology improved. Excavations from the bed of the Solent show that even 8000 years ago these people were technologically well advanced (Momber. G, 2011). Farming developed in the near-east some 9000 years ago and arrived in Britain over three thousand years later (Ammerman & Cavalii-Sforza, 1971). Technology developed with stone tools being replaced by metal. With each progressive stage the impact of people on the landscape became more profound. The proportion of open landscapes to dark forests over this period is the subject of much academic debate and speculation. (Riecken, Finck, & Schroder, 2002). There are those who suggest that for a substantial period after the last ice age all of Britain, with the exception of the highest mountain tops, was covered with trees (Bennett, 1988). However the persistence of lowland species of open habitats through this period is well recorded by Sir Harry Godwin who suggested the presence of refuges in ‘localized habitats such as dunes, cliffs, riverbanks and mountain tops’ (Godwin, 1975). In his history of British mammals Derek Yalden accepts the likelihood of a high proportion of tree cover but also states ‘Their trampling, grazing and browsing must have had profound

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

effects on the suppression of woodland regeneration (and) the creation of glades’ (Yalden & Maroo, 2000). There are many ways of interpreting the evidence from preserved pollen and other plant materials as well as the remains of vertebrates and invertebrates. Recent studies have considered the produce of invertebrates such as dung brood balls together with the preserved fungi of dung (Baker, 2011) (Svenning & Sandom, 2014). Each set of evidence is partial and reflects environmental conditions on different scales. What is commonly understood is the landscape had some areas covered in trees and some open spaces. (Bunzle-Druke, Druke, & Vierhaus, 1995, Bunzel-Druke M., 1997, Bunzel-Druke M., 1999, Kampf, 2000, Vera, 2000, Svenning, 2002). Even as early as 1911 the potential of some heathland plant communities being ‘primitive’ naturally open habitats, never having borne natural woodlands and not derived from the ‘degeneration of woodland’, was recognised (Tansley, 1911). What remains debatable is the proportion of woodland to open landscapes during the development of the landscape in the post-glacial period. This hypothesis that natural habitats in north-west Europe are not wholly dominated by trees is supported by a significant proportion of European wildlife being adapted to open landscapes (van Wieren, 1998). Many of the species we associate with woodlands are actually species of the woodland edge or on well-lit trees and not the darkness of a closed woodland canopy (Reicken, Finck, & Schroder, 2001) (Riecken U. , 2001). There is an unresolved debate as to what degree wild grazing animals determine the character of a natural landscape. A long established theory led by the English botanist Sir Arthur Tansley (Tansley, 1935) favoured populations of grazing animal being determined by the vegetation; and continues to have supporters (Mitchell, 2005) (Birks, 2005).This theory is reflected in accounts of heathland which make no mention of the role of native herbivores and only consider grazing effects from domestic livestock (Tansley, 1911) (Webb N. , 1986). In the late twentieth century this model has been challenged by Frans Vera (Vera, 2000) and others, with a theory that grazing animals strongly influence the development of the vegetation. (Beutler, 1996) (Geiser, 1992) (Beemster et.al., 2012). Archaeological excavations at the Trust’s Testwood Lakes nature reserve unearthed remains of both domestic cattle and auroch, Britain’s now extinct native wild cattle. The remains have been dated from the Middle Bronze Age, some three and a half thousand years ago. By this period farming was well established with domesticated livestock imported from the continent (Beja-Pereiraet.al., 2006). The landscape at Testwood at that time was still sufficiently wild to support both auroch and beaver (Yalden D. , 1999). Whilst beaver appeared to persist into the medieval period, the Testwood remains are the last time auroch have been recorded from Hampshire. The Bronze Age was a tipping point in the history of the habitats of open landscapes as this is when domestic animals supplanted wild animals as the principal graziers of open spaces (Pienkowski & Bignal, 1999). Records of historic mammals are scarce in central southern England. However if one considers records from Thatcham near Newbury (Wymer, 1962), the Kennet Valley (Carter, 1975) and East Dorset (Rankine, 1961) the local mammal fauna of the immediate post glacial included boar, beaver, red deer, roe deer, elk, auroch, fox, wolf, badger, pine martin, hedgehog, common shrew, water vole, wild cat and a few teeth of tarpan, our native wild horse.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 7: Woodpastures support both veteran trees and open habitats ÂŠ Clive Chatters

Whilst the ecological impacts of domestic animals differ from wild animals they replicate some of the effects thereby creating substitute habitats for those species dependent upon wild graziers (Figures 7, 8 and 9) (Tischler, 1980). The implications of this shift from wild animals to domestic livestock has been summarised as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Generally speaking when agriculture was introduced, livestock grazing and haymaking replaced the grazing and browsing by wild megaherbivores. This is the solution to the apparent paradox that most conservation interests today are focused on apparently manmade habitats (Partel, 2005). The wildlife communities of heathland may be regarded as largely natural communities that were found within the open habitats of our prehistoric landscape. In recent history the extent and combinations of those habitats is the result of the work of people. When it comes to the Trust managing heaths these debates are not just academic. If large grazing animals are an essential component to a heathlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecology then the restoration and maintenance of grazing needs to be a fundamental part of our heathland management.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

3. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND GRAZING HEATHLAND Practical management decisions benefit from being able to draw on sound science. There are many studies of individual aspects of heathland grazing. What is lacking is a scientifically controlled and truly replicated series of experiments which investigate the relationship of grazing with the full breadth of heathland biodiversity. The need for such studies regularly appears in literature (Noss, 1994, Bakker. J, 1998, Kuiters.A, 2002), including a report to English Nature with a suggested a range of methodologies for such research (Lake.S et.al, 2001). An analysis of the literature published in 2009 concluded that there was not sufficient scientific research to draw scientific conclusions (Newton.A, et.al. 2009).

Figure 8: Pigs grazing amongst bracken: New Forest ÂŠ Clive Chatters

The difficulties of designing and delivering such experiments were considered by Iain Gordon and Herbert Prins (Gordon & Prins, 2008). They concluded that the sheer number of variables that need factoring into the experimental design means that such studies are not amenable to classic replicated experiments. Where long-term studies are available there are practical difficulties in drawing conclusions with confidence as the dynamics of the systems being managed are unpredictable. (De Blust, 2009). Gordon and Prins recognised that the lack of such data should not be a barrier to continuing to take decisions but that those need to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;incorporate both hard and soft (expert opinion) knowledgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. In contrast there is substantial literature describing the simplification of open habitats following the loss of grazing by large herbivores (Byfield & Pearman, 1996, Losch & Dosch, 1997, Bakker. J, 1998, Raehse, 1996, Riecken U. , 2001, Calvo et.al., 2005, van Wieren & Bakker, 2008). What these studies do not offer is proof as to the precise mechanisms through which those losses have occurred.

3.1 Ecological Theory Ecological studies have produced a range of theories and models which help inform management decisions. The following is a summary of elements of theoretical ecology which are particularly pertinent to grazing heathlands. In the absence of forces to the contrary, nutrients tend to accumulate in habitats. This accumulation of nutrients enables larger and more competitive species to dominate which eventually results in a reduction of diversity. To maintain high diversity, an intervention is needed to prevent nutrient accumulation (Green B. H., 1972). With the advent of industrialisation the natural flows of nutrients through ecosystems such as heathlands have been complimented by processes such as aerial pollution from compounds of nitrogen and sulphur (Vogels, 2013). Such aerial pollution accelerates the natural processes and requires additional interventions (Gordon & Prins, 2008). In simple management terms, things do not stay the same if you do nothing.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Species competition can be intense with a few species having the potential to dominate most others. However in the presence of environmental stress the ability of more vigorous species to dominate is supressed. The degree of stress supporting high biodiversity may result in the majority of species living in conditions which are less than ideal (Grime, 1973). To a conservation manager this means that in safeguarding diversity you need to accept that many species are not going to thrive to the same degree as if you managed the site primarily for them. If you seek to manage a site for a narrow range of species then the likelihood is you will reduce the overall diversity. In diverse habitats few species thrive, but many survive. The response of species diversity to various stresses can be plotted with a line taking the form of a ‘hump’, with too little or too much stress reducing diversity (Milchunas, et.al 1988). Local species diversity is maximised when stresses in the form of disturbance are neither too rare nor too frequent (Catford et.al, 2012). The ‘hump’ model can be extended to include species other than the plants for which it was developed. The model holds for birds and mammals and some groups of invertebrates. The responses of bird and mammal diversity to increasing environmental stresses tend to be more immediate than for plants (van Wieren & Bakker, 2008). Managing for diversity is therefore directed to produce patchy mosaic habitats which fluctuate in their character over time and across the site. On small sites it is particularly challenging to manage for diversity whilst also providing habitats for specialist species associated with more extreme environments. Disturbance is necessary to provide gaps into which species may colonise. This enables the ecosystem to be dynamic and to be open to responding to changing circumstances. As different species require gaps at different states of their lifecycles, and at different times, a continuous supply is needed throughout the year and over the years. Different species have different ranges of tolerance with some specialist species dependant on levels of disturbance at various stages of their life cycles that may reduce overall diversity (Wilkinson.D, 1999). Grazing contributes to continuous disturbance and hence dynamism (Picket & White, 1985, Remmert, 1991). Conservation managers tend to be more sensitive to the risks of perceived ‘over-grazing’ than ‘under-grazing’. Similarly conservationists tend to protect sites from occasional acts of gross disturbance. This can result in the reduction of opportunities to secure recruitment of the next generation of species. Isolated habitats act like islands with a restricted ability for species or individuals to colonise the site to compensate for those which have become locally extinct (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967). The effects of fragmentation are increased as fragments become increasingly isolated from one another (Piessens, 2005). Many sites managed by conservationists are fragments of a historically extensive and interconnected ecosystem. Local extinctions may occur through processes whose effects may be delayed for considerable periods of time (Tilman. D, 1994). It is likely that a range of species will become extinct despite our best efforts if we cannot secure bigger, better and more joined up ecosystems (Lawton, 2010). The theory is reflected in practice on English heathlands (Webb & Rose, 1994) but it is unclear as to full range of mechanisms at work.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 9: Beaulieu Road, New Forest ÂŠ Clive Chatters

The impacts of large grazing animals on ecosystems differ depending on the ecological history of those ecosystems. The length of evolutionary history of the ecosystem is significant. Those systems with a long evolutionary history of large herbivore grazing are relatively resilient to fluctuations in grazing pressure (Adler. P et.al., 2004). Fluctuations in grazing density in time and over an area are important to maintain diversity (Gordon, 1988) (MacNaughton, 1984) Total diversity of native species at the landscape level will be greatest when disturbance occurs at its historical frequency and historical patterns (Hobbs & Huenneke, 1992). Such disturbance comes in many forms from occasional catastrophic events to the impacts of grazing animals. Large grazing animals are a natural part of our wildlife and the challenge to the site manager is to find grazing systems which provide a modern analogy to natural grazing systems.

3.2 Evidence Relating To Heathland Species And Communities Theoretical ecology combined with ecological history reassures us that large grazing animals are an integral part of heathland ecology. In managing heathlands the Trust starts from a position of seeking to safeguard the dynamics of a heathlandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ecosystem rather than focusing on the needs of individual species. In any ecosystem most of the species present will never be known to us. This approach means managing a site to sustain the diversity in the structure of the vegetation consistent with maximising biodiversity. Free roaming large grazing animals contribute to maintaining such landscapes. There are exceptional cases when additional interventions are required, notably when a particularly high profile species is found within a highly fragmented habitat. The smaller and more isolated a site so the greater the inherent tensions between managing for the needs of diversity and the needs of individual species. The following accounts describe some of the issues relating to different groups of species. A recent review of the requirements of the biodiversity action plan priority species of heathland demonstrated the structural diversity needed to support a range of heathland species (Alonso,

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

2013). The species represented a number of taxonomic groups namely, fungi, lichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, amphibians/reptiles and birds.

Habitat/ niche requirements of Biodiversity Action Plan species associated with lowland heath in England Open sunny conditions but protected from wind Bare ground/early successional vegetation Grass-heath matrix Scattered scrub, individual trees and their edges Temporary water, including mud and bare peat Dwarf shrubs

61% of species 53% “ 38% “ 30% “ 13% “ 9% “

NB: As several species need more than one niche to complete their lifecycle the percentages add up to more than 100. (Webb J. R., 2010)

3.2.1 Birds Birds are particularly sensitive to vegetation composition and structure, and hence grazing intensity. Conservation management with birds as a primary objective tends to focus on structure (Day & Symes, 2003) .The vegetation structure, dung, ground disturbance and occasional carrion produced by large grazing animals offer birds nesting and feeding opportunities. The impact of heavy grazing pressures can have negative consequences for ground nesting species through mechanisms such as trampling, exposure to predators and a decline in invertebrate food (Grant, 1999). However, insufficient grazing intensity denies ground nesting birds the structure of habitat they need to nest and raise their young (Durant & et.al, 2008), with very short swards and associated broken ground being actively sought out by some heathland species both for breeding and feeding (van Wieren & Bakker, 2008). To the conservation manager these effects become more acute within small sites, particularly those where the open habitats on which the ground nesting birds depend are in close proximity to sources of disturbance and predation.

3.2.2 Invertebrates The effects of grazing on invertebrates are difficult to summarise as they comprise a huge group occupying a large number of ecological niches. The studies that have been undertaken tend to consider individual species in a limited set of taxa. There are other studies which deal with invertebrates of particular habitat types (Key, 2000) (Kirby P. , 2001). Invertebrates are important herbivores in their own right. The effects of the herbivory of invertebrates on heathland ecosystems are beyond the scope of this review. The effect of large herbivores on invertebrates has been summarised as modifying the ‘quality and quantity of litter, dead wood, flowers, seed, cover, egg laying sites, nesting sites and vegetation structure’ (van Wieren & Bakker, 2008). In addition grazing animals affect invertebrates through the presence of their living and dead bodies together with their excreta. (Cox. J, 1989). Whole communities of insects are dependent upon the faeces of large grazing animals. Changes in the abundance of these invertebrates can have consequences for other creatures such as insectivorous birds and bats. Grazing animals create gaps in vegetation and can maintain those gaps over time. The highest densities of invertebrates associated with heathers are found in either pioneer or old heather stands (Underhill-Day, 2005). Early stage succession habitats are particularly important to heathland invertebrates and these can be maintained through grazing (Figure 10)

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

(Key, 2000). In their review of literature van Wieren & Bakker concluded â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;large herbivores, by their presence and activities, do contribute positively to invertebrate diversityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

Figure 10: Silver studded blue. A mid-stage succession species ÂŠ Ken Dolbear

The impacts on individual species may however require individual assessment. Strategic guidance on the management of habitats for invertebrates is available, as are numerous autecological studies of individual species. (Kirby P. , 2001) (Buglife and DEFRA, 2003). Methods for managing potential conflicts of habitat requirements between invertebrates, and between invertebrates and other species, are available (Offer.D, 2003).

3.2.3 Amphibians and Reptiles Heathlands are exceptionally rich habitats for amphibians and reptiles. The effects of grazing large herbivores on the lifecycles of these species are complex. The heathland habitat of amphibians and reptiles owes its presence to a history of grazing, yet inappropriate levels of grazing are frequently cited as significant risks. (Baker. J, 2011) (Edgar. P, 2010) (Strijbosch. H, 2002). Species such as natterjack toad and sand lizard are associated with various successional stages of heathlands from bare ground to mature heather at different periods of their lifecycle (Smith & Sutherland, 2013). Intensive-care habitat management for sand lizard using mechanical means has been shown to result in a site being many more times productive for the species than for less intensively managed sites (Corbett, 1983). The impact of such management on a range of the other species of the heath is not recorded. The provision of structural diversity and connectivity between habitats to ensure recovery of populations following localised extinctions is difficult to achieve in fragmented sites. Reptiles and amphibians are regarded as at risk as the scale of the natural processes they depend upon has been largely lost or severely disrupted. The loss of scale and isolation of habitats pose challenges to site managers, however ways of resolving such challenges are available (Offer.D, 2003).

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

3.2.4 Fungi Fungi play a fundamental role in the ecology of heathland, not least through the cycling of nutrients. There are numerous studies of such processes particularly in relation to mycorrhizzal associations with the heather family. With notable exceptions, an understanding of the biology of fungi is insufficiently well advanced to direct conservation management other than in safeguarding the diversity of quality habitats.

Figure 11: The Nail Fungus matures on the high fibre dung of heathland ponies ÂŠ Clive Chatters

Heathlands supporting diverse vegetation are associated with an equally diverse mycota. Short grazed grasslands within heaths are notable for waxycaps Hygrocybe spp and the agarics of wet heaths and mires such as Omphalina. The fungi of large herbivore dung is highly distinctive with species such as the nail fungus Poronia punctata being restricted to the fibrous dung of horses and ponies grazing on heaths (Figure 11) (Dixon, 1996) (Cox. J, 1989).

3.2.5 Vegetation Algae The conservation of terrestrial algae, with the notable exception of stoneworts, has little prominence in conservation management. Algae are a conspicuous element of the early stage succession of heathland and species such as Zygogonium ericetorum closely associated with internationally important plant communities in peat hollows ( Figure 12) (Stallegger, 2008). Aquatic algae, in the form of stoneworts have received attention as some of the largest and most complex of the green algae. Heathlands are important habitats for stoneworts with the New Forest and the Lizard being recognised as having international importance (Stewart N. , 2004). This importance is dependant of safeguarding water quality and ensuring the stonewort habitats are maintained at an early stage of succession. This is achieved through a combination of grazing and ground disturbance.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 12: Marsh Clubmoss is associated with the blue-green algae of exposed peat. ÂŠ Clive Chatters

Bryophytes The bryophytes are the mosses, liverworts and hornworts. The response of bryophytes to the cyclical management of heather stands through occasional burning is well recorded. The bryophyte communities change with the maturing of the heather, in essence a suite of bryophytes are early colonists of bare ground but those pioneer species become displaced by epiphytic species as the vegetation becomes taller and denser. The conservation of such bryophyte communities is dependent upon maintaining the cycles of management (Shimwell & Coppins, 1971). Too frequent burning can impoverish what has the potential to be a species-rich bryophyte habitat (Burch, 2009). Diverse moss assemblages in old-growth heath are an upland feature; in the lowlands these assemblages tend to be species poor. Rare lowland mosses such as Dicranum spurium and Hypnum imponens are associated with unburnt, short close-grazed heaths. Continuous disturbance such as that maintained by grazing and disturbance helps to arrest succession and is particularly advantageous to species which require open habitats but which are relatively poor colonists such as the hornwort Anthoceros punctatus on trampled banks and the hepatics of peat depressions including Gymnocolea inflata (Stallegger, 2008). The dung of large herbivores provides habitat for bryophytes such as the Cruet Collar Moss Splachnum amplexicale whose lifecycle is dependant both upon animal dung together with the flies attracted to that dung ( Figure 13) (Stern R. , 2010) (Paton, 1961). The impact of grazing on wet heath and mire has been shown to reduce the dominance of coarse grass species and diversify the bryophyte and flowering plant flora (Clarke, 1988). The bryophyte flora of open mires and the short vegetation of dry, humid and wet heaths can be exceptionally rich (Stern R. , 2010) (Rose , Brewis, & Bowman, 1986).

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 13: Cruet Collar-moss completes its lifecycle on dung by being attractive to flies. ÂŠ Clive Chatters

Lichens As with bryophytes much of the research literature relates to the management of heather moors on the upland fringes. Heathlands have long been regarded as important for lichens, indeed lichens can become sufficiently dominant for vegetation to be described as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;lichen heathâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Fletcher A. , 1984). In his review of New Forest lichens Neil Sanderson describes the management associated with heathland lichen communities of conservation importance. The grazed New Forest heaths continue to support lichen species and communities in decline outside the New Forest (Sanderson N. , 1996) (Sanderson N. , 2010) (Sanderson N. A., 2014). The cyclical nature of stands of heather managed through periodic burning and grazing (Shimwell & Coppins, 1971) may support diverse lichen communities if local circumstances permit the maintenance of gaps in the canopy. Such circumstances tend to be temporary phenomena compared to the communities of prostrate heathers. Recent observations, which are supported by experimental observations (Johansson & Reich, 2005), indicate that these communities are not impoverished by fire. One of the heathland habitats supporting some of the richest lichen communities are continuously heavily grazed stands where the heather is reduced to a prostrate creeping growth form. The grazing is by cattle and ponies and the grazing pressures are likely to have been maintained for decades, possibly longer. These non-flammable heaths provide refuges for fire-sensitive lichens such as the cladonias Cladonia zopfii, C. arbuscula and C. mediterranea (Figure 14).

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 14: A mixed stand of Cladonia ÂŠ Clive Chatters

Other species, including Pycnothelia papillaria and the cladonias Cladonia strepsilis, C. callosa and C. subcervicornis have proved to be fire dependent species which are specialists of hard compact humus. These are highly threatened species in lowland Europe outside of the New Forest. These particular species are favoured by periodic cool fires that remove common late-succession mosses and loose litter but are not so hot as to sterilise or burn the hard humus. The fire associated assemblage develops in periodically burned heaths but is clearly richest where moderate heavy browsing maintains extensive open gaps in the canopy between burns and lengthens the burn cycle. Lichen-rich heath usually occurs on wet to dry heath with soil of very low productivity and limited grass cover. Such poor soils can be associated with sites of historic disturbance such as ancient holloways or mineral workings. Again moderate to high browsing on the disturbed ground clearly greatly lengthens the persistence of lichen rich communities. Where associated with concrete constructions these communities form distinctive assemblages including species associated with less acid conditions.

3.2.6 Vascular Plants Studies on the relationship of grazing to plants tend to address changes in communities and diversity rather than effects on individual species (van Wieren & Bakker, 2008). The notable exception is the extensive literature relating to heathers (Webb N. , 1986) (Gilbert & Anderson, 1998). The relationships of heathland vegetation to grazing are discussed in the Mires and Heaths volume of British Plant Communities (Rodwell, 1991). The European literature emphasises the role of large herbivores in maintaining floral diversity in pastoral landscapes and the loss of diversity when grazing is abandoned, such as follows declines in pastoral economies (Redecker, 2002). An analysis of the changing status of scarce plants in Britain attributed the decline of a broad range of plants from heathland habitats to the absence of disturbance and the decline of grazing levels with the consequential spread of coarse vegetation and scrub (Stewart , Pearman, & Preston, 1994). The heathland habitats considered were acid grasslands, water margins and damp mud together with heaths and bogs. A detailed study of Dorset heaths came to similar conclusions and drew comparisons between the local extinctions of plants on mostly un-grazed Dorset heaths with the persistence of species in the grazed New Forest (Byfield & Pearman, 1995). The diversity of the heathland flora of the New Forest was

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

reviewed in 2007 (Chatters & Rand, 2010). The heathland habitats which supported the greatest concentrations of Red List and Notable plants were strongly associated with well illuminated areas of low fertility within the grazed and sporadically burnt heaths. A more recent study of Red List plants for England identified heathlands as the lowland habitat with the highest proportion of threatened species. Those species were associated with well illuminated, nutrient poor conditions. The analysis also correlated plant height to threat, and found that threatened plants were on average significantly shorter than non-threatened species (Stroh, 2014) . The ranges of tolerances of heathland species differ with some of the rarest, notably the critically endangered pennyroyal mint Mentha pulegium and small fleabane Pulicaria vulgaris, being associated with the very highest grazing and trampling pressures. These habitats are concentrated around the historic settlement edge farmsteads with their gateways onto the heathland commons (Chatters, McGuire, Rand, & Sanderson, 2014). In the context of the New Forest such habitats were found in less than 1% of the heathland area. Similarly the internationally important plant communities of open peat habitats are dependent on grazing and trampling pressures maintaining exposed peat whilst also enabling early stage succession to occur. The restoration of such habitats can be assisted by mechanical clearances of coarse vegetation through making scrapes, but in the absence of grazing the results may be relatively short lived (Stallegger, 2008).

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

4. FIRE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES Heathlands are habitats associated with sudden and violent physical changes. Catastrophes can be natural events and need not have a disastrous or unhappy conclusion.

4.1 Fire Fires are natural phenomena. The frequency, severity and ecological processes of truly natural wildfires in the British lowlands are a matter of speculation. Research in the boreal zone of northern Europe indicates that fire is an important natural disturbance factor and effective fire control is a significant factor in explaining why some forest species are threatened (Esseen & et al., 1997). Controlled fires are now used to restore and enhance biodiversity (Vanha-Majamaa, 2006). Comparable research is available for the Atlantic climatic zones of Europe. There are indications that the germination of heathland dwarf shrubs and grasses have a positive relationship with exposure to smoke and ash (Bargmann, 2013). Similarly there are lichen which are dependent on periodic ‘cool’ fires that removes late succession mosses and loose litter and exposes, but does not sterilise or burn the hard humus ( Figures 15 and 16).

Figure 15: A wildfire at Broxhead Common, East Hampshire © Clive Chatters

Fire is a management tool used to improve the forage value of heaths. In Hampshire there are historic records of fire being used as a management tool (White, 1789, Sumner, 1910) but the actual extent and frequency of fires remains a matter of conjecture. Much of the research work in the United Kingdom has been done on the heaths of the upland margins in relation to game management (Fletcher K. et.al, 2014). Fire is used on lowland heaths in the cyclical maintenance of the grazing quality of coarse vegetation, dwarf shrub and gorse stands. Fire reduces the volume of coarse and woody vegetation, stimulates more palatable forage and creates early stage successions. (Shimwell & Coppins, 1971). Depending on the character and productivity of the heath, and the intensity of the burn, burning as part of conservation management may occur in extended cycles measured over decades (Underhill-Day, 2005, Dolman & Land, 1995, Tubbs, 1974). The effects of fire are dependent on a number of factors, not least the intensity of fire and the management of the regrowth. As fire stimulates growth of vigorous species such as purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea the absence of grazing to exploit the regrowth can result in the simplification of the habitats through encouraging grass dominance. Similarly the intensity of a fire will have different effects. A fire which removes much of the vegetation and litter but leaves burrowing creatures, soil layers, roots and seedbank intact has a very different effect to one which removes all organic matter down to the mineral soil.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 16: A controlled burn on Beaulieu Heath, New Forest © Clive Chatters

Heathlands close to urban areas are subject to various pressures including arson. Arson may result in burning regimes on fragmented sites at intensities and frequencies which may result in local extinctions. Observations from heaths where grazing has been restored, is that arson events are reduced both in frequency and severity (Kirby & Tantrum, 1999) (Haskins, 2000).

4.2 Gross Disturbance Sudden changes to heathland habitats may occur following periods of national crisis or as a result of extractive industries, with such changes occurring on a variety of scales (Figure 17). Aerial photography from the late 1940’s reveals the impact of military training on heaths such as Hazeley near Hartley Witney (HCC PRO 41/75 NE) and Long Valley by RAF Farnborough (HCC PRO 41/85 SW). By the end of the Second World War these heaths were almost completely devoid of vegetation.

Figure 17: Ploughing heath at Longslade c.1940, New Forest © Christopher Tower Library

Whilst sudden acts of disturbance are difficult to reconcile as a conservation tool the effects of disturbance can contribute to the overall diversity of the heath, not least by creating niches available for re-colonisation and through diversifying the topography and soil chemistry (Paton, 1961) (Chatters & Rand, 2010) (Sanderson N. , 1996). A challenge for conservation Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

managers is how to accommodate such catastrophes in the strategic long-term management of the conservation estate.

4.3 Cutting And Mowing Cutting vegetation may introduce sudden changes to heathland habitats depending on the scale of the application of those techniques. Cutting is used for restoration management of heathlands as well as part of cyclical management. Restoration management may require extensive clearance of trees or tussock grasslands which have become dominant in the absence of other management. Following restoration regeneration can, and does, occur. This regeneration needs to be managed through further clearance or the adoption of a grazing regime designed to maximise the effects of livestock on coarse grasses, seedlings and sapling trees. Cutting grassland and heather stands through processes such as mowing mimic some, but not all, of the ecological processes associated with grazing and thus supports different communities than those associated with grazing (Roemermann, et.al 2009) (Jantunen, 2003) (Bullock & Pakeman, 1997) . Whilst some species may benefit from cutting the lack of diversity of structure in cut vegetation does not help in meeting the objective of managing for biodiversity. Cutting combined with grazing optimises conditions for colonisation and establishment of more exacting species (Walker & et-al., 2004).

Figure 18: A New Forest charcoal burner’s hut made of pared turves c.1870 © Christopher Tower Library

An extreme form of cutting is the paring of the organic soil of the heath and its attendant vegetation (Figure 18). Cutting heathland turves is a traditional practice to gather fuel for household fires. This was a formerly widespread practice in Hampshire and occurred on a significant scale. Turf cutting for fuel is well documented in the accounts of Manor Courts. Cutting was subject to disputes and attempts at regulation to safeguard what was a valuable, and potentially renewable, resource. Whilst the traditional practice is well documented the ecological consequences are not (Tubbs, 2001). There are tantalising suggestions in nineteenth century floras such as the records for allseed Radiola linioides ‘In moist places on sandy and gravelly heaths and commons, particularly in spots from which the turf has been pared’ one such spot being recorded as Colwell Heath on the West Wight (Bromfield, 1856). Research into the application of this technique as a conservation measure indicates it increases the opportunities for species of early stage succession of peat soils (KostrakiewiczGieralt, 2014). The tradition of turf removal for animal bedding, ‘plaggen’, on continental heaths has an extensive ecological literature. This practice reverts heathland communities to early stage successions and in doing so contributes to the transfer of nutrients from the heaths to the adjacent farm holdings (Vogels, et.al 2013). It is unclear whether such practices were present in central southern England. There is abundant evidence of the cutting of bracken for animal bedding in Hampshire, a practice which still occurs in the New Forest. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Conservation management options include making â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;scrapesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. A scrape may range from a few square metres to significant portions of hectares. Scraping can remove all of the vegetation, soil and seedbank, or can be designed to mimic historic turf cutting.

Figure 19: Carting a crop of bracken in the New Forest. Late 19th century ÂŠ Christopher Tower Library

4.4 Herbicides Herbicides are used in restoration management such as the suppression of bracken stands which have become dominant and invasive in the absence of other management. Bracken is a native fern in heathland habitats and was historically an important part of the heathland economy (Figure 19) (Rymer, 1976). Bracken supports diverse plant and invertebrate communities which may be at risk if herbicide treatment is not adequately assessed. Herbicide treatment plays an important role in the management of invasive non-native species such as Rhododendron.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

5. EVIDENCE RELATING TO GRAZING ANIMALS 5.1 Differences Between Grazing By Wild And Domesticated Animals The impact of ‘natural’ populations of large herbivores has been the subject of much discussion, research and practical experiments (Branson, 2009). The history of the native fauna of lowland Western Europe is discussed as part of the evolutionary history of heathland. Whilst sheep and goats are not native there is a wide range of mammal herbivores known to have been part of the recent evolutionary history of our landscape (Svenning & Sandom, 2014). There are differences between ‘natural’ grazing and grazing with domesticated animals. In natural grazing systems the populations of herbivores and their impacts are subject to change. The fluctuations occur over time and also spatially. Spatial changes may be local or seasonal. An extreme expression of such fluctuations is seasonal long-range migrations. These fluctuations are determined by a range of factors including the availability of forage, particularly in the lean months of winter, together with the effects of parasitism, disease and predation. Herds of animals with an equal abundance of male to female animals have a radically different social structure and behaviour from domesticated, mostly female, herds (Overmars et.al. 2002). Predation pressures in large mammals tend to reflect the availability of prey rather than predators controlling prey populations. Predation by one or more species can affect the behaviour of herbivores to a degree which influences the structure of vegetation (Lendrum, 2014, Painter et.al, 2014). The manipulation of sex ratios and the elimination of predators changes the behaviour, and the consequential ecological impacts, of large grazing animals. The effects of natural grazing has been summarised as ‘ The land is only able to sustain as many animals as can find sufficient food in times of food scarcity….This means in practice that in summer there is a surplus of food (Helmer, 2002). A surplus of food would result in a high structural diversity in the herbaceous vegetation in summer which would then be reduced during the winter months as that surplus is exploited. In contrast domestic livestock tend to be managed to maximise the exploitation of forage available in summer by providing for alternative sources of food through the winter months. Domesticated animals are overwintered through maximising the productivity of summer forage and storing it for later use (Peterken, 2013). In practice this means that the density of domestic livestock may be many times higher in summer than under ‘natural’ systems. The exploitation of winter forage by domestic animals tends to be less intense than in natural systems and therefore the impacts on the structure of the woody vegetation may be reduced. Natural grazing systems are also likely to support a range of herbivores which interact with one another whereas domestic systems tend to favour one species over others. The natural ‘in combination’ impacts of large herbivores can therefore be lost from an ecosystem. Large herbivore interactions are not confined to mammals and may include herbivorous birds if these are present as large flocks (van Eerden, 1997). These differences between ‘natural’ and domestic grazing systems will result in differences to the character of habitats and the species they support. Whilst there are differences the principal ecological processes remain the same.

5.2 Differences Between Domesticated Animals Not all domesticated animals, and not all grazing regimes, are the same. The following section explores some of the factors which account for the variable effects of grazing on heathland habitats. When grazing with domestic animals the principal choices to be made relate to the species, the number of animals and the season the grazing animals are present.

5.2.1 Species and species mix If it is the intention to seek to rejuvenate grazing practices which reflect historic patterns then one needs to consider ‘which period in history?’ (Hobbs & Huenneke, 1992). At the scale of

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

the history of the evolution of the habitat one would therefore tend to favour domesticated cattle, horses and pigs to supplement wild and feral deer as these are analogous to native wild mammals (Figure 20). Non-native species such as sheep and goats have a history in Britain dating back to early farmers. Sheep-grazing on heaths is particularly associated with dryer continental heaths (Bakker et.al, 1983) including those of Eastern England and the upland margin. Goats have been known from heaths both in Hampshire and on the Isle of Wight (Taverner, 1957).

Rabbits are of more recent origin, both as domesticated and feral stock (Sheail, 1971). What role may species such as the European bison play? Bison are native to the European mainland but not the British Isles, certainly not during this interglacial. (Yalden D. , 1999) What role may novel species such as donkeys, water buffalo or llamas play (Tolhurst & Oates, 2001)? All of these species have been associated with conservation grazing in Britain. In addition to considering individual species one needs to consider the combination of species. For example the combined effect of cattle and ponies grazing together has a different impact on the vegetation than either of them in isolation. These differences are complex and include cattle being ruminants whilst horses are not, and the differing dental arrangements supporting different feeding strategies.

5.2.2 Breed Domestication of grazing animals is closely bound up with selective breeding. Selective breeding has produced a great diversity of grazing animals suited to a broad range of environmental conditions (Tolhurst & Oates, 2001). The Rare Breed Survival Trust list 36 British native breeds of cattle and 14 horses and ponies. Each of these breeds exhibit different characteristics and some are well suited to living out on heathlands. Indeed, breeds such as New Forest and Exmoor ponies are emblematic of their heathland landscapes. The Trust currently runs herds of British White and Shetland cattle and draws on a variety of other breeds of cattle and ponies to graze the heaths under its care. There are long standing breeding programmes seeking to back-cross both cattle and horses to recreate the ancestral auroch (cattle) (Heck, 1951) and tarpan (European wild horse) (Heck, 1952).These breeding programmes are associated with ‘re-wilding’ habitats in continental Europe (Morris, 2009). Przewalski's horse Equus ferus przewalskii is a nondomesticated horse, now restricted in the wild to Mongolia, with zoo bred populations used for grazing a heathland in north Hampshire. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

5.2.3 Gender Contemporary grazing regimes tend to be dominated by female livestock accompanying immature or castrated males. Boar, bulls and stallions are infrequently encountered and then they are usually present as individuals. The predominantly female herds form matriarchal community structure for those periods when mature males are absent. The impact of bachelor herds of stallions and bulls on sites such as the Oostvardesplassen reveals how a change in gender can effect vegetation (van Adrichem, 1994) (Redecker, 2002).

5.2.4 Age The age class of livestock affects behaviour which in turn reflects on the vegetation. The behaviour of a mare or cow with young is different than without. The behaviour can be defensive and the foraging more intensive to sustain the energy expenditure of lactation. Continuity of older stock is associated with learned traits which are passed to the younger members of the herd. Such traits include learning how to take advantage of questionably palatable foodstuffs, the location of ‘shades’ where best to avoid troublesome insects together with sheltered places where forage is available during extremes of weather. Learned behaviour can be problematic when animals learn that they may be supplementary fed. Such behaviour can put livestock in direct conflict with people which can result in behavioural changes both by people and livestock. Older stock with a continuity of foraging a particular site can build immunity to infections such as that caused by the parasite Babesi in cattle. Movements of stock between sites can expose animals without immunity to infection leading to severe problems to the welfare of the animal, its productivity and fertility.

5.3 The Home Range The location of the home range of a herd of animals affects the structure of habitats. Should a site be large enough, such as a New Forest heath, herd animals may establish a ‘haunt’. The haunt will provide for the needs of the herd including access to reliable water supplies and adequate forage through the seasons together with shelter from troublesome insects and the extremes of weather (Tyler, 1972) (Ekins et.al., 1986). Where such herds are maintained all year round they have the potential to have an effect on the vegetation closer to natural grazing regimes than that achieved through seasonal grazing. In the modern landscape the home range of an animal is ultimately defined by man-made barriers. Research on the effects of grazing on heaths has included experiments which confined stock on small plots. This not only posed challenges for the welfare of the stock but also imposed ‘unnatural’ constraints as to how animals forage across heaths. The ecological processes of heathland grazing do not work effectively at such scales. (Bostock, 1981).

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

The more productive soils of heathland landscapes are at the greatest risk of being converted to other uses. These more productive soils are more likely to support more productive vegetation such as wood pastures and grasslands in contrast to the lesser productive dwarf shrub dry heaths (Clarkx & Bijlsma, 2003). Even when the historic heathland landscape remains intact productive soils are the most vulnerable to either being incorporated into ‘improved’ amenity grasslands from which stock are excluded or converted through natural succession to secondary woodland (Byfield & Pearman, 1996). Such fragmentation can be mitigated where heathland forage is part of a broader resource including access for stock into contiguous ‘improved’ pastures (Celaya & Rosa, 2011). Fragmentation is as much about the productivity of a site, and its consequent capacity to support grazing animals, as it is the size of the fragment. Conservation management frequently has to address the challenges of fragmented sites, devoid of the scale, diversity and productivity of vegetation which supported the historic grazing regimes. The practice of a daily migration from a farmstead onto the heath was within living memory a regular feature of heathland grazing (Figures 21 and 22). With the demise of small-scale dairying the nature of cattle herds on heathland commons has changed. Herds now tend to be free ranging unless there is a motivation to concentrate on a particular point such as access to supplementary feeding. Such changes in behaviour may have a significant impact on the structure of vegetation even if the number of livestock has not changed. The decline in daily migrations of stock, particularly cattle, has resulted in the loss of the open habitats with high levels of disturbance and eutrophication. The specialist species of muddy places have declined accordingly and once widespread species are now critically endangered (Chatters, 1996, Chatters, McGuire, Rand, & Sanderson, 2014). The heathland farm is an important part of the ecology and conservation management of the heath. Historically these farms are the source of the livestock which graze on the heath. These farms are also the recipients of the products of the heath ranging from the livestock themselves to bracken, firewood, turves and peat. (Kaland, 2001) As such the farm acts as a focus for the concentration of nutrients derived from the heath (Green B. , 1981).The relationship of the heathland edge farms of the New Forest with the unenclosed landscapes has been the subject of studies for over a century (Chatters & Kernohan, 2013).

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Farms set alongside the ‘ragged concave outlines of many heathland commons’ (Rackham O. , 1986) are an integral part of a heathland’s landscape and rural economy. This landscape developed as small irregular fields progressively encroached upon the unenclosed landscape. Such assarting has been documented from the early medieval period but the practice will have pre-dated the survival of these records (Taylor, 1975). Such fields may also be found as enclaves within the heath and can reflect a more regulated approach to medieval enclosure such as the establishment of vaccarys in the New Forest and near Odiham (Trow-Smith, 1957). The retention of unenclosed lanes between the fields with broad verges contributes to the landscapes of heathland edge funnels, droves and greens. Where such features remain intact and serving their original function they provide links between otherwise fragmented heaths. In more recent centuries encroachments on the heath through enclosure has established a landscape of large rectilinear fields. Heathland communities and species may persist within the fields of a heathland farm. The acts of assarting and enclosure are not synonymous with agricultural improvement. The relationship of enclosed fields and unenclosed heaths is not static. Unenclosed heathlands may form over formerly farmed landscapes. These changes may be driven by population crises such as the Black Death or the more recent expediencies of the ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign of the Second World War. More frequently this process is less easily reversible as heathlands are taken up by urban growth or converted into farmland and forestry plantations.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

6. HISTORIC ECOLOGY AND DOCUMENTARY SOURCES Evidence in the form of historic documents assists us in understanding the character of the heaths we manage. By the very nature of historic documents the evidence is eclectic in origin and partial in survival. The methodology of using historic documents to understand landscapes is well established as is the co-ordination of documentary evidence with fieldwork (Hoskins, 1967, Sheail, 1980, Rackham O. , 1986).

Documents can give insights into the extent of heaths, their landscape character and wildlife together with how people have used these landscapes. Documentary evidence on land-use in Hampshire and on the Island is available from the Saxon period. The administration of land, particularly communally managed areas such as Royal Forest, Commons and Manor Wastes has generated a considerable wealth of mediaeval documents. The process of Parliamentary enclosure of heathlands is well documented with a summary of enclosures in Hampshire available in a single volume. (Chapman & Seeliger, 1997). The Tithe Commutation Surveys of the mid nineteenth century are another valuable source of land uses, land values and the pattern of ownership (Kain & Oliver, 1995). The Ordnance Survey maps of the late nineteenth century have been described as ‘the zenith of rural mapmaking in Britain and perhaps the world’ (Rackham O. , 1986). The detail available in these maps is exceptional but is not always simple to translate (Figure 24) (Oliver, 2013). In later years aerial photography has contributed to understanding landscape change. We are fortunate locally that aerial photographs of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight are available from the 1920’s onwards (Crawford & Keiller, 1928). Aerial photographs from this period are complimented by the work of the Land Utilisation Survey. This survey mapped heathland across the whole of Britain through the interwar years. (Stamp, 1937) Biological records are available from the late sixteenth century. By the early nineteenth century such records become increasingly abundant (Allen, 1994) . Where there are an abundance of records it is possible to deduce something of the character of the habitats present, sometimes even to the point of suggesting plant communities and management.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

Figure 24: The 1870 Ordnance Survey sets out the heathland landscape of Woolmer Forest in great detail. ÂŠ Ordnance Survey

Documentary evidence needs to be used with due caution. Travellersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; accounts may be highly opinionated (Fiennes, 1888, Defoe, 1724, Cobbett, 1830); economic appraisals may be directed to a pre-determined end (Driver & Driver, 1794, Young, 1768-1771, Vancouver, 1810); and aerial photographs may be doctored to disguise sensitive military installations (HCC/PRO 134M87/2210243). A reasonably scholarly approach to documents can however enhance confidence in detailed accounts such as those by Gilbert White of the wildlife and management of the heaths of Woolmer Forest (White, 1789) (HCC/PRO/15A10/3/1-4) (HCC/PRO 1/96WOO1). The eclectic and disparate nature of documentary evidence means that a diligent researcher exploring new sources is seldom left unrewarded.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

7. EVIDENCE, EXPERIENCE AND JUDGEMENT It takes more than the application of published evidence to manage heathlands. Evidence assists in making decisions but management frequently depends on judgements based on both evidence and experience. The heathland literature is remarkably light in records of the experience of practical managers. This is not surprising as practitioners tend to have neither the time nor inclination to produce detailed written records of their experience. This is particularly so for those practitioners who manage heaths because they are an everyday part of their livelihoods. This is the type of knowledge which accumulates over the generations and within communities of graziers. Such knowledge is invaluable, if imperfect and vulnerable to being presented ‘with advantages’ to reflect the circumstance of the day. The absence of such records does not diminish the value of experience. As with all livelihoods there are some people with greater skills, experience and insights than others. There is considerable scope for further investment in the continuity of such knowledge, and where possible, the recording of how day to day decisions are made by those who manage the heaths we admire.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

8. FRANCIS ROSE AND COLIN TUBBS The Trust’s management of heathlands has been strongly influenced by the work of Dr Francis Rose and Colin Tubbs. In his early career Francis Rose explored the refugia theories of Tansley and Godwin (Rose, 1957). As Reader of Biogeography at London University he undertook extensive fieldwork throughout north-west Europe and tested those theories against experience. Through an appreciation of the distribution and ecological tolerances of flowering plants, bryophytes and lichen, Francis Rose concluded that large grazing animals are an integral part of our native ecosystems anticipating the conclusions of Frans Vera by several decades (Streeter, 2007). Francis Rose worked closely with the Trust from his move to Hampshire in the early 1960s through to his death in 2006. Habitat management of nature reserves was encouraged to rejuvenate grazing and the occasional gross disturbance that comes with herds of large animals. Where grazing was not possible reserve managers were encouraged to find the nearest analogue including the memorable phrase “The JCB is this interglacial’s woolly mammoth”. It was recognised there will always be occasions when some form of intensivecare management of a nature reserve is necessary but in the long term there is a need to find a more sustainable vision. The sustainable vision was founded upon grazing. With his European perspectives Francis Rose recognised the international importance of the New Forest. He held up the ‘Ancient and Ornamental’ woods of the New Forest as a model of what a near-natural landscape looks like. Here grazing animals continue to maintain open gladed old-growth woodlands within a matrix of heaths and grassland and bog. (Rose , Brewis, & Bowman, 1986). The insights of Francis Rose complemented those of Colin Tubbs who worked for the Nature Conservancy Council and their successors in the Hampshire. Colin was highly influential in the development of the Trust from the 1960s until his death in 1997. Colin complimented the work of Francis Rose through his appreciation of the functioning of the pastoral communities and economies which have grazed ‘wild’ places such as the New Forest and other heathlands through recent historic times (Tubbs, 1997) (Tubbs, 2001). These perspectives were informed through an appreciation of pastoralism across Europe which in later years supported the foundation of the European Forum for Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (Tubbs, 1997). Francis Rose and Colin Tubbs supported a number of individuals who remain active in various aspects of heathland conservation with their work being influential in the decisions of the Trust. These individuals include Andy Byfield, Clive Chatters, Mike Clarke, Jonathan Cox, John Durnell, Rue Ekins and Neil Sanderson.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

9. CONCLUSIONS The best available evidence supports our understanding that heathlands have a long evolutionary history associated with open habitats sustained by large grazing animals. The historic documented distribution, character and extent of heathland is however a result of people grazing domesticated animals. Our heathland landscapes are manifestations of both people and wildlife. To maintain the characteristic species of heathlands it is therefore necessary to graze. As we no longer have large wild animals wandering freely across our landscape, the responsibility to secure that grazing falls to people. The best available evidence helps set a strategic direction for conservation managers. The circumstances of today differ from the past. Many of the heathland landscapes of today are fragmented and isolated relics of those of recent centuries. In our modern society it is difficult to understand the actions of our forebears striving to survive in a subsistence economy. Even in our contemporary, relatively wealthy society, there are rarely the resources available to manage a heath to its optimum. The management of heaths is therefore determined not only by evidence but also the cumulative knowledge of generations of managers. As with most other decisions the management of heathlands is ultimately a matter of judgement based on evidence and experience in an imperfect world.

Figure 26: Boldrewood Heath, New Forest ÂŠ Clive Chatters

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

10. REFERENCES • Adler. P et. al. (2004). Functional traits in graminoids in semi-arid steppes. A test of grazing histories. J. App. Ecol., 41, 653-663. • Allen, D. E. (1994). The naturalist in Britain: A social history. Princeton: PUP. • Alonso, I. (2013). Meeting species requirements with heathland management prescriptions: generalists vs. specialists. 13th European Heathland Workshop, (p. 41). Denmark. • Ammerman, A. J., & Cavalii-Sforza, L. L. (1971). Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man, 6, 674-688. • Assman, T., & Falke, B. (1997). Bedeutung von Hudelandschafen aus tierokologischer Sicht. Schr-R Landschaftspfl u Natursch, 54, 129-144. • Baker, A. (2011). How to reconstruct past grazing regimes of heathlands? 12th European Heathland Workshop, (p. 109). Leon & Tras-Os-Montes. • Baker. J. (2011). Amphibian habitat management handbook. Bournemouth: ARC. • Bakker, J. P et.al.. (1983). Sheep-grazing as a management tool for heathland conservation and regeneration in the Netherlands. J. Appl. Ecol., 20, 541-560. • Bakker. J, P. (1998). The impact of grazing to plant communities. In W. d. Vries, Grazing and Conservation Management (pp. 137-184). Dordrecht: Kluwer. • Beebee, T., & Griffiths, R. (2000). Amphibians and Reptiles. London: New Naturalist Library HarpurCollins. • Beemster, N. et.al (2012). Broedvogels in de moeraszone van de Oostvaardersplassen in 2005-2011 met een overzicht van langjarige ontwikkeling. A&W rapport 1702 Feanwalden. • Beja-Pereira, A.et.al. (2006). The origin of European cattle: Evidence from modern and ancient DNA. PNAS(103), 8113-8118. • Bennett, K. D. (1988). A provisional map of forest types for the British Isles 5000 years ago. Journal of Quaternary Science, 141-144. • Beutler, A. (1996). Die Gostierfauna Europas und ihr Einfluss auf Vegetation un Landschaft. Natur und Kulturlandschaft, 1, 51-106. • Birks, J. B. (2005). Mind the Gap: how open were European primeval forest? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 154-156. • Bargmann, T. (2013). Life after fire: germination responses of herbs and graminoids to ash and smoke treatments in northern heathlands. 13th European Heathland Workshop, (p. 72). Denmark. • Bostock, J. (1981). Countryside Commission Management Experiments on Cannock Chase. In L. Farrell, Heathland Management. Focus on Nature Conservation No.2 (pp. 7888). Peterborough: JNCC. • Branson, A. (Ed.). (2009). Naturalistic grazing and re-wilding in Britain. Special Supplement. British Wildlife, 20. • Bromfield, W. A. (1856). Flora Vectensis. London: Wm Pamplin. • Buglife and DEFRA. (2003). Managing Priority Habitats for Invertebrates. Volumes 17 & 24. Peterborough: Buglife. • Bullock, J., & Pakeman, R. (1997). Grazing of lowland heath in England: Management methods and their effects on heathland vegetation. Biol. Conserv., 79, 1-13. • Bunzel-Druke, M. (1997). Grosherbivore und Naturlandschaft. Achr-R f Landschaftspfl u Natursch, 54, 109-128. • Bunzel-Druke, M. (1999). Grostiere und Landschaft- von der Theorie zur Praxis. Natur und Kulturlandscaft, 3, 210-229. • Bunzle-Druke, M., Druke, J., & Vierhaus, H. (1995). Wald, Mensch und MegafaunaGedanken zur holozanen Naturlandschaft in Westfalen. LOBF- Mitteilungen, 4/95, 43-51. • Burch, J. (2009). The regeneration of bryophytes after the burning of dry heaths and wet moorland on the North York Moors. Sheffield: NE. • Byfield, A. J., & Pearman, D. (1995). Dorset's disappearing heathland flora: a case for reinstating grazing. RSPB Conservation Review, pp. 84-89. • Byfield, A. J., & Pearman, D. (1996). Dorset's Disappearing Heathland Flora. London/Sandy: Plantlife/RSPB. • Calvo, L. et.al.(2005). Effects of livestock and wildlife grazing on heathland vegetal diversity in NW Spain. 9th European Heathland Workshop, (p. 96). Belgium.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

• Carter, H. H. (1975). Fauna of an area of Mesolithis occupation in the Kennet Valley,considered in relation to contemporary eating habits. Berkshire Archaeological Journal, 68, 1-3. • Catford, J. A.et.al. (2012). The intermediate disturbance hypothesis and plant invasions: Implications for species richness and management. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 14 , 231-241. • Celaya, R., & Rosa, R. (2011). Increase in value of Cantabrian heathland areas through sustainable grazing systems. 12th European Heathland Workshop, (pp. 23-31). Leon & Tras-os-Montes. • Chapman, J., & Seeliger, S. (1997). A Guide to Enclosure in Hampshire 1700-1900 (Vol. Hampshire Record Series Volume XV). Winchester: HCC. • Chatters, C. (1996). Conserving rare plants in muddy places. British Wildlife, 7, 281-286. • Chatters, C., & Kernohan, R. (2013). Avon Water Studies. Curdridge: HIWWT. • Chatters, C., & Rand, M. (2010). Vascular Plants. In A. C. Newton (Ed.), Biodiversity in the New Forest (pp. 65-83). Newbury: Pisces Publications. • Chatters, C., McGuire, C., Rand, M., & Sanderson, N. A. (2014). Small Fleabane in the New Forest. Curdridge: HIWWT. • Clarke, M. (1988). Past and present mire communities of the New Forest and their conservation. PhD Thesis. University of Southampton. • Clarkx, A. P., & Bijlsma, R. J. (2003). Veluwse heide blijkt open boslandschap na ecologische interpretatie van het kadastrale archief van 1832. De Levende Natuur, 104(4), 148-155. • Cobbett, W. (1830). Rural Rides . Andover: Rensley. • Cook, J. (2013). Ice Age art: The arrival of the modern mind. London: British Museum Press. • Corbett, K. (1983). Heathland Management for the Sand Lizard. In L. Farrell, Heathland management: Focus on nature conservation No.2. Peterborough: JNCC. • Cox, T. (1738). Magna Britannia; Antiqua et Nova . (M. Norgate, Ed.) • Cox. J, R. (1989). The Biodiversity of Animal Dung. Eastleigh: HIWWT. • Crawford, O. G., & Keiller, A. (1928). Wessex from the air. Oxford: Clarendon Press. • Day, J. C., & Symes, N. (2003). A practical guide to the restoration and management of lowland heathland. Sandy: RSPB. • De Blust, G. (2009). 30 years of grazing in the Kalmthoustse Heide(B); lessons for the future. 11th European Heathland Workshop (p. 13). Cornwall: Natural England. • Defoe, D. (1724). Tour Through England and Wales. (E. Rhys, Ed.) London: Dent. • Dennis, R. (1999). The importance of extensive livestock grazing for woodland biodiversity: traditional cattle in the Scottish Highlands. In M. W. Pienkowkski, & D. G. Jones (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pasturalism. Islay. • Dixon, G. (1996). Fungi of the New Forest: A mycota. British Mycological Society. • Dolman, P. M., & Land, R. (1995). Lowland Heathland. In W. J. Sutherland, & D. A. Hill, Managing Habitats for Conservation. Cambridge: CUP. • Driver, A. F., & Driver, W. (1794). General view of the agriculture of Hampshire. London. • Durant, D., & et.al. (2008). Management of agricultural wet grasslands for breeding waders:integrating ecological and livestock system perspectives-a review. Biol. Conserv., 17, 2275-2295. • Edgar. P. (2010). Reptile Habitat Management handbook. Bournemouth: ARC. • Ekins, R.et.al. (1986). Use of habitat by free-ranging cattle and ponies in the New Forest,southern England. J. App. Ecol., 23, 539-557. • Elligsen, H., Beinlich, B., & Platcher, P. (1997). Effect of large scale cattle grazing on populations of Coenonympha glycerion and Lasiommata kegera ( Lepidoptera: Satyridae). Journal of Insect Conservation, 1, 13-23. • Esseen, P., & et al. (1997). Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletin, 46, 16-47. • Fiennes, C. (1888). Through England on a Side Saddle in the Time of William and Mary . London: The Leadenhall Press . • Fletcher, A. (1984). Survey and assessment of lowland heath lichen habitats. Contract HF 3/03/266. Peterborough: NCC. • Fletcher, K. et.al. (2014). Game management in the UK uplands: a review of the effects of management on other wildlife and ecosystem services. In Ecology and Conservation of Birds in Upland and Alpine Habitats. British Ornithologists' Union.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

• Geiser, R. (1992). Auch ohne Homo sapiens ware Mittleuropa von Natur aus ein halboffene Weidelandschaft. (ANL, Ed.) Wald oder Weidelandschaft -Zur Naturgeschichte Mittleuropas, Luffener Seminarbeitrage 2/92, pp. 22-34. • Gilbert, O. L., & Anderson, P. (1998). Heath and Moor. In Habitat Creation and Repair. Oxford: OUP. • Gimmingham, C. H. (1961). North European Heath Communities. A 'Network of Variation'. J. Ecol., 49, 655-694. • Godwin, H. (1975). History of the British Flora: A factual basis for Phytogeography (second edition). Cambridge: CUP. • Gordon, I. J. (1988). Facilitation of Red Deer grazing by cattle and its impacts on Red Deer performance. J. App. Ecol., 25, 1-10. • Gordon, I. J., & Prins, H. H. (2008). The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing (Vol. Ecological studies 195). Berlin: Springer. • Grant, M. C. (1999). Breeding success and causes of breeding failure of curlew Numenius arquata in Northern Ireland. J. App. Ecol., 36, 59-74. • Green, B.H. (1981). Countryside Conservation. London: George Allen & Unwin. • Green, B. H. (1972). The relevance of seral eutrophication and plant competition to the management of successional communities. Biol. Conserv., 4, 378-384. • Grime, P. (1973). Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature, 242, 344-347. • Gunther, R. (1922). Early British Botanists and Their Gardens. Oxford: OUP. • Harding, P. T., & Rose, F. (1986). Pasture-Woodlands in Lowland Britain. A review of their importance for wildlife conservation. Huntingdon: ITE. • Haskins, L. (2000). Heathlands in an urban setting-effects of urban development on heathlands of south-east Dorset. British Wildlife, 4, 229-237. • The following are documents held in the Hampshire Public Records Office. • HCC PRO 41/75 NE. (n.d.). • HCC PRO 41/85 SW. (n.d.). • HCC/PRO 1/96WOO1. (n.d.). • HCC/PRO 134M87/2210243. (n.d.). • HCC/PRO/15A10/3/1-4. (n.d.). • Heck, H. (1951). The Breeding-Back of the Auroch. Oryx 1 (3), 117. • Heck, H. (1952). The Breeding-Back of the Tarpan. Oryx, 1 (7), 338. • Helmer, W. (2002, May). Natural grazing versus seasonal grazing. vakblad NATUURBEHEER, pp. 31-33. • Hobbs, R. J., & Huenneke, L. R. (1992). Disturbance, Diversity and Invasion. Implications for Conservation. Conservation Biology, 6, 324-337. • Hoskins, W. G. (1967). Fieldwork in local history. Faber: London. • Jantunen, J. (2003). Vegetation changes in a semi-natural grassland during mowing and grazing periods. Annales Botanici Fennici, 40, 255-263. • Johansson, P., & Reich, P. B. (2005). Population size and fire intensity determine postfire abundance in grassland lichen. Applied Vegetation Science, 8, 193-198. • Kain, R. J., & Oliver, R. R. (1995). The Tithe Maps of England and Wales. Cambridge: CUP. • Kaland, P. E. (2001). Heathlands of Europe: 5000 years with flames. Bergen: University of Bergen. • Kampf, H. (2000). Beweidung in de Neiderlanden. ABU info, 24(2), 36-53. • Key, R. (2000). Bare Ground and the conservation of invertebrates. British Wildlife, 183191. • Kirby, J. S., & Tantrum, D. A. (1999). Monitoring heathland fires in Dorset. Report to DETR. • Kirby, P. (2001). Habitat Management for Invertebrates: A Practical Handbook. Sandy: RSPB. • Kostrakiewicz-Gieralt, K. (2014). The effect of neighbouring plant height, disturbance level and gap size on spontaneous recruitment of large-seeded and small-seeded species in Molinietum caeruleae meadows. Polish Journal of Ecology, 62(2), 289-306. • Kuiters.A, T. (2002, May). Hoofed Animals In Nature Areas: Theory and Practice Versus Research. (K. de Smet, & R. P. van Brouwershaven, Eds.) vakblad NATUURBEHEER Special issue" Grazing and Grazing animals", pp. 21-23. • Lawton J.H et.al (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

• Lake.S.et.al. (2001). Impacts of livestock grazing on lowland heath in the UK: Research Report 422. Peterborough: English Nature. • Lendrum, P. E. (2014). Home range characteristics of a sub-ordinate predator. Journal of Zoology, 58-66. • Losch, S., & Dosch, F. (1997). Erwartet freifallende Flachen in der LandwirtschaftChance fur eine naturnahere Landnutzung? Schr-R d Dt Rates f Landespflege, 54, 28-36. • MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biodiversity. Princeton: PUP. • MacNaughton, S. J. (1984). Grazing lawns: animals in herds, plant form and coevolution. Am. Nat, 124, 863-886. • Milchunas, D. G. et.al (1988). A generalized model of the effects of grazing by large herbivores on grassland community structure. Am. Nat, 132, 87-106. • Mitchell, F. J. (2005). How open were European primeval forests? Hypothesis testing using paleoecological data. J. Ecol., 93, 168-177. • Momber. G. (2011). Mesolithic occupation at Bouldnor Cliff and the submerged prehistoric landscapes of the Solent. York: CBA. • Morris, E. (2009, November). Conservation Biology: Reflecting the past. Nature, 462, pp. 30-32. • Newton.A, C. et.al (2009). Impacts of grazing on lowland heath in north-west Europe. Biol. Conserv., 142(5), 935-947. • Noss, R. F. (1994). Cows and Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology, 8, 613-616. • Offer.D. (2003). Grazing heathland-A guide to impact assessment for insects and reptiles. Peterborough: Natural England. • Ogilby, J. (1675). Britannia. London. • Oliver, R. R. (2013). Ordnance Survey Maps: a concise guide for historians (edn 3 ed.). The Charles Close Society. • Overmars, W., Helmer, W., Meissner, R., & Kurstjens, G. (2002, May). Natural Grazing, social structure and heredity. vakblad NATUURBEHEER, pp. 33-36. • Painter, L. E. et.al (2014). After long-term decline are aspen recovering in north Yellowstone. Forest Ecology and Management, 329, 108-117. • Parfit, S. A. et.al (2010). Early Pleistocene human occupation at the edge of the boreal zone in northwest Europe. Nature, 466, 229-233. • Partel, M. (2005). Biodiversity in temperate European grasslands: Origin and Conservation. In R. Lillak, et.al (Ed.), Integrating efficient grassland farming and biodiversity (pp. 1-14). Tartu: International Symposium of the European Grassland Federation. • Paton, J. (1961). A Bryophyte Flora of South Hampshire. Transactions of the British Bryological Society, 4, 1-83. • Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting base-line syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 430. • Peterken, G. (2013). Meadows. British Wildlife Publishing. • Picket, S. T., & White, P. S. (1985). The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Orlando: Academic Press. • Pienkowski, M. W., & Bignal, E. (1999). The historical and contemporary importance of herbivores for biodiversity. European Forum for Nature Conservation and Pastoralism Occassional Publication No.21. • Piessens, K. (2005). Effects of heathland fragmentation on the heathland plant community. 9th European Heathland Workshop, (p. 24). Belgium. • Pitts, M., & Roberts, M. (1998). Fairweather Eden. London: Arrow. • Price, E. A. (2003). Lowland Grassland and Heathland Habitats. London: Routledge. • Rackham, O. (1986). The history of the countryside. London: Dent. • Rackham, O. (1986). The history of the countryside. London: Dent. • Raehse, S. (1996). Veranderungen in der kulturlandschaft.Lebensraum. Hess. Wisebaden: Min. d. Inneren u. f. Landwirtsch. Forsten u. Natursch. • Rankine, W. F. (1961). The mesolithic age in Dorset and adjacent regions. Prceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 83, 91-99. • Ratcliffe, D. A. (1977). A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge: CUP. • Redecker, B. (Ed.). (2002). Pasture Landscapes and Nature Conservation. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

• Reicken, U., Finck, P., & Schroder, E. (2001). Halboffe Weidelandschafen und Wildnisgebiete alsZiele des Naturschutzes aus Bundessicht- Alternativen zum Erhalt und zer Pflege von Offenlandbiotopen. (B. Gerken, & M. Gorner, Eds.) Natur und Kulturlandschaft, 4, pp. 88-94. • Remmert, H. (1991). The mosaic-cycle concept of ecosystems. (Vol. Ecol Studies 85). Berlin: Springer. • Riecken, U. (2001). Neue Konzepte des Naturschutzes zum Erhalt von Offenlandschaften-Fachlicher Hintergrund und prakische Umsetzung am Beispiel halboffener Weidelandschaften, Wildnisgebieten und Redynamisierung. In Bayerisches Landsamt Fur Umweltschutz (Ed.), Fleisgewasserdynamik und Offenlandschaften. Ausburg. • Riecken, U., Finck, P., & Schroder, E. (2002). Significance of pasture landscapes for nature conservation and extensive agriculture. In B. Redecker (Ed.), Pasture Landscapes and Nature Conservation (pp. 423-432). Berlin: Springen-Verlag. • Robson, J. M. (Ed.). (1988). The collected works of John Stuart Mill (Vol. XXVI part II). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. • Rodwell, J. S. (1991). British Plant Communities: Volume 2: Mires and Heaths. Cambridge: CUP. • Roebroeks, W. (2006). The human colonisation of Europe: Where are we? J. Quaternary Sci, 21, 425-435. • Roemermann, C. et.al (2009). Substitutes for grazing in semi-natural grasslands - do mowing or mulching represent valuable alternatives to maintain vegetation structure? Journal of Vegetation Science, 20, 1086-1098. • Rose , F., Brewis, A., & Bowman, P. (1986). The Flora of Hampshire. Colchester: Harley Books. • Rose, F. (1957). The importance of the study of disjunct distributions to progress in understanding the British flora. In J. E. Lousley (Ed.), Progress in the study of the British Flora: BSBI conference of 1956 (pp. 61-78). London: BSBI. • Rymer, L. (1976). The history and ethnobotany of bracken. Bot.J. Linn.Soc, 73, 151-176. • Salmon, M. A., Harley, B., & Marren, P. (2000). The Aurelian Legacy. Colchester: Harley Books. • Sanderson, N. (1996). New Forest Heathland Management and Lichens. Unpublished report to the British Lichen Society. • Sanderson, N. (2010). Lichens. In A. C. Newton (Ed.), Biodiversity of the New Forest (pp. 84-111). Newbury: Pisces Publications. • Sanderson, N. A. (1998). A review of the extent, Conservation interest and Management of Lowland Acid Grassland. Peterborough: English Nature. • Sanderson, N. A. (2014). conservation_ecology/heathland_lichen_survey. Retrieved from www.wessexlichengroup. • Sheail, J. (1971). Rabbits and their History. David and Charles. • Sheail, J. (1980). Historical Ecology;the documentary evidence. Cambridge: ITE. • Shimwell, & Coppins. (1971). Cryptogram complement and biomass in dry Calluna heath of different ages. Oikos, 22, 204-209. • Smith, R. K., & Sutherland, W. J. (2013). Amphibian Conservation: Synopses and Conservation Evidence. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing. • Stallegger, M. (2008). Management of Natura 2000 habitats. Depressions on peat substrates of the Rynchosporion. European Commission. • Stamp, D. (Ed.). (1937). The Land of Britain. The report of the Land Utilisation Survey of Britain. London: Geographical Publications. • Stamp, D. (1948). The Land of Britain: it's Use and Misuse. London: Longmans, Green &co. • Stern, R. (2010). Atlas of the Bryophytes of South Hampshire. Newbury: Pisces Publications. • Stern, R. (2010). Bryophytes. In A. C. Newton (Ed.), Biodiversity of the New Forest (p. 123). Newbury: Pisces Publications. • Stewart , A., Pearman, D., & Preston, C. D. (1994). Scarce Plants in Britain. Peterborough: JNCC. • Stewart, N. (2004). Important Stonewort Areas. Salisbury: Plantlife. • Streeter, D. (2007). Obituary. Francis Rose. Watsonia, 26, 515-526. • Strijbosch. H. (2002, May). Reptiles and Grazing. vakblad NATUURBEHEER, pp. 28-30.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

• Stroh, P. (2014). A vascular plant red list for England. Bristol: BSBI. • Sumner, H. (1910). Cuckoo Hill, The book of Gorley. London: Chiswick Press. • Svenning, J.-C. (2002). A review of natural vegetation openness in north-western Europe. Biol. Conserv., 104, 133-148. • Svenning, J.-C., & Sandom, C. J. (2014). High herbivore density associated with vegetation diversity in interglacial ecosystems. PNAS, 111, 4162-4167. • Svenning, J.-C., & Sandom, C. J. (2014). Pre-extinction interglacial ecosystem structurethe European case and global perspectives. Megafauna and Ecosystem Function: from the Pleistocene to the Anthropocene, (p. 11). Oxford. • Tansley, A. G. (Ed.). (1911). Types of British Vegetation. Cambridge: CUP. • Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284-307. • Tansley, A. G. (1949). The British Isle and their Vegetation (Second edition ed.). London: CUP. • Taverner, L. (1957). The Common Lands of Hampshire. Winchester: HCC. • Taylor, C. (1975). Whiteparish: a study of the development of a Forest edge parish. W.A.M, 62, 79-102. • Tilman. D. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371. • Tischler, W. (1980). Biologie der Kulturlandschaft. Stuttgart: G.Fischer. • Tolhurst, S., & Oates, M. (2001). The Breed Profiles Handbook. Peterborough: Grazing Animal Project/English Nature. • Townsend, F. (1904). Flora of Hampshire (edn 2 ed.). London: Lovell Reeve. • Trow-Smith, R. (1957). The History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700. Routledge and Kegan Paul. • Tubbs, C. R. (1974). Heathland management in the New Forest, Hampshire. Biol. Con., 6, 303-306. • Tubbs, C. R. (1997). A strategy for the forum. La Cañada, pp. 5-7. • Tubbs, C. R. (1997). The ecology of pastoralism in the New Forest. British Wildlife, 9, 717. • Tubbs, C. R. (2001). The New Forest. Lyndhurst: New Forest Ninth Centenary Trust. • Tyler, S. J. (1972). The behaviours and social organisation of the New Forest ponies. Animal Behaviour Monographs 5, 87-196. • Underhill-Day, J. C. (2005). A literature review of urban effects on lowland heaths and their wildlife. Peterborough: NE. • van Adrichem, E. (1994). Terrein gebruik en sociale organisatie van Heckrunderen in de Oostvaardersplassen. Intern rapport / Directie Ijsselmeergebied:. • van Eerden, M. (1997). Moulting Grazing Geese defoliating a reedmarsh: seasonal constraints versus long term commensalism between plants and herbivores. Groeningen: University of Groeningen. • van Wieren, S. E. (1998). Effects of large herbivores upon the animal community. In M. F. Wallis DeVries, Grazing and Conservation Management (pp. 185-214). Boston: Kluwer. • van Wieren, S. E., & Bakker, J. P. (2008). The Impacts of Browsing and Grazing Herbivores on Biodiversity. In I. J. Gordon, & H. H. Prins, The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing (pp. 263-292). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. • Vancouver, C. (1810). General view of the Agriculture of Hampshire, including the Isle of Wight. London: Phillips. • Vanha-Majamaa, I. (2006). Tree mortality and its causes after low-intensity prescribed fires in managed Pinus sylvestris stands in southern Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22, 2-12. • Vera, F. (2000). Grazing Ecology and Forest History. Wallingford: CAB International. • Vogels, J. et.al (2013). Impact of changed plant stoichiometric quality on heathland faunal composition. In W. H. Diemont (Ed.), Economy and ecology of heathland. Zeist, The Netherlands: KNNV Publishing. • Walker, K. J., & et-al. (2004). The restoration and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK. Biol. Conserv., 119, 1-18. • Webb, J. R. (2010). Managing for species: integrating the needs of England's priority species into habitat management. Natural England. • Webb, N. (1986). Heathlands. London: Collins.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Our Heaths: A summary of the evidence which informs the management of heathlands for wildlife

• Webb, N. (1999). The traditional management of European heathlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 987-990. • Webb, N., & Rose, R. J. (1994). Habitat Fragmentation and Heathland Species. Furzebrook: ITE. • Wellington-College. (1872). Flora Wellingtonensis. Natural History Society 3rd Annual Report. Wellington College. • Whitburn, T. (1899, May). Nature Notes. The magazine of the Selborne Society, X. • White, G. (1789). The natural history and antiquities of Selborne. London: Benjamin White. • Wilkinson.D, M. (1999). The disturbing history of intermediate disturbance. Oikos, 84, 145-147. • Wymer, J. (1962). Excavations at the Maglemosian sites at Thatcham, Berkshire,England. Proceedings of te prehistoric Society, 28, 255-361. • Yalden, D. (1999). The History of British Mammals. London: Poyser. • Yalden, D. W., & Maroo, S. (2000). The Mesolithic mammal fauna of Great Britain. Mammal Rev., 30, 243-248. • Young, A. (1768-1771). Annals of Agriculture and other useful Arts. Bury St Edmunds: Rackham.

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust