Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 729–749

The effect of coppice management on moth assemblages in an English woodland

  • Alice Broome
  • Susan Clarke
  • Andrew Peace
  • Mark Parsons
Original Paper

Abstract

Coppice woodlands in Britain may become the target of increased management due to the rise in demand for woodfuel. The biodiversity value of sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) coppice and the effect of coppice management upon this has received limited study. Moths were the focus of this study in an actively coppiced sweet chestnut woodland in southern England. Coupes, with between one and 20 years of coppice regrowth, were systematically sampled for night flying micro- and macro-moths and coppice structure and ground vegetation were described. Using differences in moth assemblage, three stages of coppice development were distinguished: with one-four, five-nine and more than 10 years of coppice regrowth. Differences in moth assemblage related to habitat conditions within each coppice stage. The young coppice stage moth assemblage was characterised by species typically associated with open habitats; moths of the middle coppice stage assemblage fed on trees and were species typically associated with open woodland and scrub habitats; moths of the mature coppice stage assemblage were species typically associated with closed canopy woodland and contained specialist species whose larval food consists of material such as lichen and decaying leaves. All three coppice stages supported species of listed conservation status; the mature coppice stage contained a distinctive range of scarce and threatened species. The study showed that active coppicing promotes a change in moth assemblage but consequently will temporarily eliminate many species of mature stage coppice. Management which provides a range of coppice age classes within a woodland, appears key in promoting moth diversity.

Keywords

Assemblage Coppice Coppice management Lepidoptera Macro-moth Micro-moth Moth Sweet chestnut coppice 

References

  1. Anon (1952) Census of woodlands 1947–1949. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon (2004) Forestry facts and figures. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  3. Anon (2007a) UK biomass strategy. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Anon (2007b) A woodfuel strategy for England. Forestry Commission England, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker RR, Sadovy Y (1978) The distance of nature of light-trap response of moths. Nature 276:818–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barkham JP (1992) The effects of coppicing and neglect on the performance of the perennial ground flora. In: Buckley GP (ed) Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 115–146Google Scholar
  7. Benes J, Cizek O, Dovala J, Konvicka M (2006) Intensive game keeping, coppicing and butterflies: the story of Milovicky Wood, Czech Republic. For Ecol Manag 237:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley J (2000) Checklist of Lepidoptera recorded from the British Isles, 2nd edn. Privately published by D Bradley, Fordingbridge, HantsGoogle Scholar
  9. British Geological Survey (1995) Wight (sheet 50° N 02° W) 1:250,000 solid geology, 2nd edn. Keyworth, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulman C (2007) Woodlands—a vital habitat for butterflies and moths. Q J For 101:29–38Google Scholar
  11. Clarke SA (2003) The Waved Carpet moth Hydrelia sylvata ([Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775) coppice woodland survey 2002, Rep. No. S03-15. Butterfly Conservation, WarehamGoogle Scholar
  12. Coppini M, Hermanin L (2007) Restoration of selective beech coppices: a case study in the Appenines (Italy). For Ecol Manag 249:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummings I, Cook H (1992) Soil-water relations in an ancient coppice woodland. In: Buckley GP (ed) The ecology and management of coppice woodlands. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 52–77Google Scholar
  14. Decocq G (2000) The ‘masking effect’ of silviculture on substrate-induced plant diversity in oak-hornbeam forests from northern France. Biodivers Conserv 9:1467–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dirkse GM, Martakis GFP (1998) Species density of phanerogams and bryophytes in Dutch forests. Biodivers Conserv 7:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emmet AM (1988) A field guide to the smaller British Lepidoptera, 2nd edn. British Entomological and Natural History Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans J (1992) Coppice forestry—an overview. In: Buckley GP (ed) Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 115–146Google Scholar
  18. Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991) Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev 57:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farrell EP, Führer E, Ryan D, Andersson F, Hüttl R, Piussi P (2000) European forest ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the past. For Ecol Manag 132:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferris-Kaan R, Patterson GS (1992) Monitoring vegetation changes in conservation management of forests. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Fry R, Waring P (1996) A guide to moth traps and their use. Amateur Entomol 24:1–60Google Scholar
  22. Fuller RJ, Moreton BD (1987) Breeding bird populations of Kentish sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) coppice in relation to age and structure of the coppice. J Appl Ecol 24:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuller RJ, Warren MS (1993) Coppiced woodlands: their management for wildlife. Joint Nature Conservancy Council, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  24. Gardener M (1993) The micro economics of coppice management in the Furness area of Cumbria: a report to the Countryside Commission. The New Woodmanship Trust, CarnforthGoogle Scholar
  25. Gondard H, Romane F, Santa Regina I, Leonardi S (2006) Forest management and plant species diversity in chestnut stands of three Mediterranean areas. Biodivers Conserv 15:1129–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall ML, Greatorex-Davies JN (1989) Management guidelines for the conservation of invertebrates, especially butterflies, in plantation woodlands Institute of Terrestrial Ecology/Natural Environment Research Council, Huntingdon. NCC/NERC Contract HF3/08/12, ITE project TO 9014 c1Google Scholar
  27. Harmer R (2004) Restoration of neglected hazel coppice. Forestry Commission Information Note 56. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  28. Harmer R, Howe J (2003) The silviculture and management of coppice woodlands. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  29. Hill D, Roberts P, Stork N (1990) Densities and biomass of invertebrates in stands of rotationally managed coppice woodland. Biol Conserv 51:167–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P (2005) Handbook of biodiversity methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howe J (1991) Hazel coppice past, present and future. Hampshire County Council, WinchesterGoogle Scholar
  32. Mason CF, Macdonald SM (2002) Responses of ground flora to coppice management in an English woodland—a study using permanent quadrats. Biodivers Conserv 11:1773–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKay H (2006) Environmental, economic, social and political drivers for increasing use of woodfuel as a renewable resource in Britain. Biomass Bioenergy 30:308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell PL (1992) Growth stages and microclimate in coppice and high forest. In: Buckley GP (ed) The ecology and management of coppice woodlands. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 31–52Google Scholar
  35. Natural England (2010) Habitats and species of principal importance in England. Natural England, Peterborough. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk. Cited 16 Dec 2010. Biodiversity/Our Work page
  36. Parsons MS (1984) A provisional national review of the status of British microlepidoptera. Invertebrate Site Register, report number 53. Nature Conservancy Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Parsons MS (1993) A review of the scarce and threatened pyralid moths of Great Britain. UK Nature Conservation No. 11. Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  38. Parsons MS (1995) A review of the scarce and threatened ethmiine, stathmopodine and gelechiid moths of Great Britain. UK Nature Conservation No. 16. Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  39. Parsons MS (2006) Is Spatalistis bifasciana (Hb.) (Lep.: Tortricidae) associated with Sweet Chestnut Castanea sativa? Entomol Rec J Var 118:225–226Google Scholar
  40. Parsons MS, Davis T (2007) Revisions to the moths included within the UK Biodiversity Plan. Atropos 32:4–11Google Scholar
  41. Parsons MS, Greatorex-Davies N (2006) The value of sweet chestnut Castanea sativa as a foodplant for Lepidoptera. Entomol Rec J Var 118:1–12Google Scholar
  42. Rackham O (1976) Trees and woodland in the British landscape. Dent, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Roberts G (1996) Conserving moths in woodlands. Q J For 90:46–52Google Scholar
  44. Rollinson TJD, Evans J (1987) The yield of sweet chestnut coppice. Forestry Commission bulletin 64. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Rydberg D (2000) Initial sprouting, growth and mortality of European aspen and birch after selective coppicing in central Sweden. For Ecol Manag 130:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sergio F, Pedrini P (2007) Biodiversity gradients in the Alps: the overriding importance of elevation. Biodivers Conserv 16:3243–3254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skinner B (2009) Colour identification guide to moths of the British Isles, 3rd edn. Apollo Books, StenstrupGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith S, Gilbert J (2003) The National Inventory of Woodland and Trees: Great Britain. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  49. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2008) Structure and conservation of Lepidopteran communities in managed forests of northeastern North America: a review. Can Entomol 140:475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Summerville KS, Courard-Hauria D, Duponta MM (2009) The legacy of timber harvest: do patterns of species dominance suggest recovery of lepidopteran communities in managed hardwood stands? For Ecol Manag 259:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sydes C, Grime JP (1981) Effects of tree leaf litter on herbaceous vegetation in deciduous woodland. I. Field investigations. J Ecol 69:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Szabó P (2009) Open woodland in Europe in the Mesolithic and in the Middle Ages: can there be a connection? For Ecol Manag 257:2327–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Szabó P (2010) Driving forces of stability and change in woodland structure: a case-study from the Czech lowlands. For Ecol Manag 259:650–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (1998) CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for windows: software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, 352 ppGoogle Scholar
  55. UK Biodiversity Group (1999) Tranche 2 action plans—volume IV: Invertebrates. JNCC, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  56. UK Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group (2007) Report on the species and habitat review. Report to the UK Biodiversity Partnership. JNCC, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Calster H, Endelsa P, Antoniob K, Verheyenc K, Hermya M (2008) Coppice management effects on experimentally established populations of three herbaceous layer woodland species. Biol Conserv 141:2641–2652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vogt J, Fonti P, Conedera M, Schröder B (2006) Temporal and spatial dynamic of stool uprooting in abandoned chestnut coppice forests. For Ecol Manag 235:88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waring P (1988) Responses of moth populations to coppicing and the planting of conifers. In: Kirby KJ, Wright FJ (eds) Woodland conservation and research in the clay vale of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Research and survey in Nature Conservation, vol 15. Nature Conservation Council, Peterborough, pp 82–113Google Scholar
  60. Waring P (1989) Moth conservation project news bulletin 2. Nature Conservancy Council, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  61. Waring P (in press). A review of the scarce and threatened Macro-Lepidoptera of Great Britain (including 10 km square dot maps). Joint Nature Conservation Council, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  62. Waring P, Haggett G (1991) Coppice woodland habitats. In: Fry R, Lonsdale D (eds) Habitat conservation for insects—a neglected green issue, vol 21. The Amateur Entomologists’ Society, MiddlesexGoogle Scholar
  63. Waring P, Townsend M (2009) Field guide to the moths of Great Britain and Ireland, 2nd edn. British Wildlife Publishing, GillinghamGoogle Scholar
  64. Warren MS (1987) The ecology and conservation of the heath fritillary butterfly Mellicta athalia, III Population dynamics and the effects of habitat management. J Appl Ecol 24:499–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Warren MS (1991) The successful conservation of an endangered species, the heath fritillary butterfly Mellicta athalia, in Britain. Biol Conserv 55:37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Warren MS, Key RS (1991) Woodlands: past, present and potential for insects. In: Collins NM, Thomas JA (eds) The conservation of insects and their habitats. Proceedings of the XV symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London. Academic Press, London, pp 155–212 (1989)Google Scholar
  67. Warren MS, Thomas JA (1992) Butterfly responses to coppicing. In: Buckley GP (ed) Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 249–270Google Scholar
  68. Warren M, Clarke S, Currie F (2001) The coppice for butterflies challenge: a targeted grant scheme for threatened species. Br Wildl 13:21–28Google Scholar
  69. Wigglesworth T, Parsons MS, Warren MS (2004) Waved Carpet (Hydrelia sylvata) fact sheet. Butterfly Conservation, WarehamGoogle Scholar
  70. Young M (1997) The natural history of moths. Poyser Natural History, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown Copyright 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alice Broome
    • 1
  • Susan Clarke
    • 2
  • Andrew Peace
    • 1
  • Mark Parsons
    • 3
  1. 1.Forest Research, Centre for Human and Ecological SciencesNorthern Research StationMidlothianUK
  2. 2.Wessex Ecology Ltd, Gardeners CottageRomseyUK
  3. 3.Butterfly ConservationWarehamUK

Personalised recommendations