Bats - Kent County Council

Proposed Westerly Extension to Hermitage Quarry

Appendix 8

APPENDIX 8 Ecology: Bats Survey

OAKEN WOOD, BARMING, KENT. BAT SURVEY

December 2009 Revised: February 2010

Field Surveyor: Martin Newcombe

Permission is granted to reproduce this report for personal and educational use only. Commercial copying is prohibited. The ownership of the biological records contained within this report remains with the original recorder.

Head Office: Kent Wildlife Trust, Tyland Barn, Sandling, Maidstone, Kent ME14 3BD Tel: 01622 662012 Fax: 01622 671390 www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk [email protected] Registered Charity No. 239992. A company limited by guarantee No. 633098. VAT Registration No. 974 8423 78

Your living landscape. Your Living seas.

Kent Wildlife Trust

Oaken Wood, Barming, Kent. Bat Survey. Executive Summary. Introduction Kent Wildlife Trust was commissioned by Gallagher Aggregates Ltd. to undertake a bat survey of an area of land at Oaken Wood near Barming, Kent. The survey was required in connection with proposals by Gallagher Aggregates Ltd. to extend their existing ragstone quarry at Hermitage Lane into Oaken Wood. The objectives of the bat survey were to: • Identify any potential roost sites; • Identify the species of bats that are present within the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area; • Identify any bat foraging areas that are present within the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area; • Provide an assessment of the current importance (national, county, local) of the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area for bats. Results At least six different bat species were recorded: common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, noctule Nyctalus noctula, serotine Eptesicus serotinus, a long-eared bat (probably brown long-eared Plecotus auritus), at least one Myotis species (probably Natterer’s Myotis brandtii, and possibly also a Brandt’s / Whiskered bat Myotis brandtii / mystacinus). Six bat roosts were also recorded - one within the proposed quarry area and five within the wider survey area. Most of the roosts were used by pipistrelle bats; one roost was used by at least two Natterer’s bats. Discussion The survey identified the importance of the main rides, young coppice and wood edges for foraging bats, both within and outside the proposed quarry extension area, but particularly in the north of the wood. The wood was found to be poor for roosting bats. The sweet chestnut plantations in Oaken Wood have about 100 or so mature trees, but at any one time they are often surrounded by dense stands of coppice which obscures and hides them. It is not surprising therefore that the main occurrence of roosts is in the south-east of the wood where there are plenty of widely-spaced mature oaks Quercus sp. which offer abundant roosting (and feeding) opportunities. There is considered to be negligible difference in terms of the results from the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area. The current distribution of roosts and feeding areas is almost certainly heavily dependent upon the stage that the coppice cycle has reached, and this could change at any time. The whole of the survey area (both the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area) is considered to be of county importance as a foraging ground for common pipistrelle; the Natterer’s bat roost is also considered to be of county importance. The whole of the survey area is considered to be of local importance for all other species.

i

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i

1.

INTRODUCTION

1

2.

THE SITE

2

3.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

4

4.

RESULTS

5

5.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

7

6.

WILDLIFE LEGISLATION

10

7.

REFERENCES

11

Appendix 1: Known Roosts Map showing boundary of survey area and location and extent of proposed quarry Figure 2: Map showing the recording compartments Figure 3: Map showing approximate route of driven bat transect Figure 4: Map showing distribution of all foraging common pipistrelles Figure 5: Map showing distribution of all foraging soprano pipistrelles Figure 6: Map showing distribution of all foraging long-eared bats Figure 7: Map showing distribution of all foraging serotine bats Figure 8: Map showing distribution of all foraging noctule bats Figure 9: Map showing distribution of all foraging Myotis bats Figure 10: Map showing distribution of all records of bats other than common pipistrelle Figure 11: Map showing distribution of all bat records for all species Figure 12: Map showing distribution of roost trees Figure 13: Photograph showing roost Tree 1 Figure 14: Photograph showing roost Tree 2 Figure 15: Photograph showing roost Tree 3 Figure 16: Photograph showing close up of the hole in roost Tree 3 Figure 17: Photograph showing roost Tree 4 Figure 18: Photograph showing roost Tree 5 Figure 19: Photograph showing roost Tree 6

12

Figure 1:

2 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26

Kent Wildlife Trust

OAKEN WOOD, BARMING, KENT. BAT SURVEY

1.

INTRODUCTION

Kent Wildlife Trust was contracted by Gallagher Aggregates Ltd. to undertake a bat 1.1 survey of an area of land at Oaken Wood near Barming, Kent. The grid reference to the centre of the site is TQ717556. 1.2 The survey was required in connection with proposals by Gallagher Aggregates Ltd. to extend their existing ragstone quarry at Hermitage Lane into Oaken Wood. 1.3

The objectives of the bat survey were to: • • • •

Identify any potential roost sites; Identify the species of bats that are present within the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area; Identify any bat foraging areas that are present within the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area; Provide an assessment of the current importance (national, county, local) of the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area for bats.

Oaken Wood, Barming, Kent. Bat Survey

1

December 2009 Revised February 2010

Kent Wildlife Trust

2.

THE SITE

2.1 The survey area comprises the north-eastern part of Oaken Wood and extends to approximately 100 hectares. It comprises a central area proposed for quarrying (approximately 30 hectares) and a wider buffer zone. 2.2 Most of the survey area is predominantly sweet chestnut coppice with low densities of standards. The site is generally level, although it reaches an elevation of approximately 90 m OD in an area not far south of the centre of the wood. The soils generally consist of freely– draining but slightly alkaline to neutral soils throughout. 2.3 Much of the survey area is designated as Ancient Woodland (www.kent.gov.uk/klis) and is included within the Oaken Wood Local Wildlife Site (MA12). A copy of the Local Wildlife Site schedule is included within Waite (2009). 2.4 A map showing the boundary of the survey area and the location of the proposed quarry area is enclosed at Figure 1 below.

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence No: AL100004919

Figure 1: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing boundary of survey area (highlighted in red) and approximate location and extent of proposed quarry (coloured brown). This is a representation only. Do not scale.

Oaken Wood, Barming, Kent. Bat Survey.

2


Kent Wildlife Trust

2.5 The survey area was divided into 34 compartments to facilitate recording. These compartments, shown on Figure 2 below, were not equal in size but were based on readily distinguished geographical features (mainly rides).


Figure 2: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing the 34 compartments used to facilitate recording. The compartment divisions and numbering are shown in blue. The site boundary is highlighted in red. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


3


Kent Wildlife Trust

3.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

3.1 Approximately thirty-five visits were made to the site throughout the period April to November 2009. During the course of these visits the following methods were used: •

An indirect assessment of possible roost sites was made by searching for field signs such as droppings and exit marks in appropriate habitats. In this connection, all standard trees in the wood were visited and assessed with respect to their potential for holding bat roosts, including a visual assessment of the quality of possible roost sites based on the descriptions of bat roosts given by Bat Conservation Trust (2007), Corbet and Harris (1991), Harris and Yalden (2008), Mitchell - Jones and McLeish (2004) and Ransome (1990) as enhanced by personal experience. Those that had suitable potential were subsequently examined in detail.

•

Where necessary, a variety of ropes and ladders were used to climb trees and examine potential bat roosts to methodically check interior and exterior surfaces, including joints, cracks and other cavities where practically and safely possible to do so.

•

Cracks and cavities within trees were examined using an endoscope, mirrors and similar equipment as appropriate.

•

Exit counts at roosts were carried out using Batbox Duet bat detectors with recording devices as required, sometimes by manual recording and sometimes by means of static recorders for a total of approximately thirty occasions.

•

Feeding areas were monitored using Batbox Duet bat detectors with recording devices as required, using modified versions of the methods described by Hill et al (2005),. Bat detector surveys of this type were carried out at the site for a total of approximately twenty-five occasions with at least five minutes being spent at each recording point.

•

Automatic bat detectors (Anabat 2 plus a recording module with timing device) were used to carry out static continuing counts of some features e.g. glades, bat roosts etc..

•

When roosts were found, counts were made at dusk to determine the number of bats using the roost.1

•

All parts of the area were systematically walked, generally using established rides and paths but ensuring that all parts of the wood were covered. Part of the circular ride system was also used to carry out a transect so as to detect flying bats (Figure 3) in a manner similar to that described by Bat Conservation Trust (2007) for driven surveys; the data were then transferred to an appropriately scaled map of the area on each occasion. Individual points were not recorded but a minimum of 5 minutes was spent at parts of the site when a positive bat record was made using the detector.

3.2 The work was undertaken on behalf of Kent Wildlife Trust by Martin Newcombe, an experienced wildlife and countryside management consultant and licensed bat surveyor.

1 These methods are further described by Mustoe, Hill, Frost and Tucker (2005), Bat Conservation Trust (2007) and Mitchell – Jones and McLeish (2004).


4


Kent Wildlife Trust

4.

RESULTS

4.1 The results of the survey are shown in Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 by species and in Figures 10 and 11 by all records for foraging bats, with the distribution centred in the middle of the area in which a bat was flying. 4.2 A total of six different species (including at least one unidentified Myotis species) were recorded at the site. 4.3 Figure 12 shows details of proven or suspected roosts that were found in the area, and Figure 10 and 11 shows the main foraging areas. 4.4

The following species of bats were recorded in the survey area: •

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus. This was the commonest bat on site and at least three roosts were suspected in the surrounding area outside Oaken Wood. The bat fed extensively in the rides and 1-3 years old coppiced areas, but like most other species was not recorded much in the older coppiced areas. This is a Kent Red Data Book (Waite, 2000) species.

•

Soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus. This species was rare within the wood, and only occasionally occurred as a foraging species. This is a Kent Red Data Book (Waite, 2000) species.

•

Noctule Nyctalus noctula. This bat flew through the wood, but only fed on the adjoining pastures, generally when cattle were present. This is a Kent Red Data Book (Waite, 2000) species.

•

Serotine Eptesicus serotinus. It was suspected that there was a roost somewhere in a building to the south of Oaken Wood, but there was no evidence to suggest precisely where. This bat frequently occurred in the eastern end of the wood where the old oaks of Compartments 29 and 34 were particularly favoured as a foraging area. This area was particularly well searched for serotine roosts but none were found. This is a Kent Red Data Book (Waite, 2000) species.

•

A long -eared bat Plecotus sp., almost certainly the brown long-eared bat P. auritus, although it was never possible to be certain of this as no bats were examined closely. These bats were often seen in much the same places, and the distribution of the sightings suggests that the species roosts in a nearby house close to the northwest edge of the site and foraged in the more varied woodland away from the closedcanopy chestnut coppice. If the bat is P. auritus it is a Kent Red Data Book (Waite, 2000) species.

•

Of the 10 records of Myotis bats that were recorded within the wood, six were thought to be Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri; at least one of the others was thought to be a Brandt’s / Whiskered bat Myotis brandtii / mystacinus, whilst the other four were uncertain. None of the records were confirmed (except the tree roost of Natterer’s bats) because of the poor quality and short duration of the sound recordings. The species was found roosting in a tree in the eastern end of the wood.


5


Kent Wildlife Trust

4.5 The locations of known roosts are shown in Figure 12. A total of six roosts were found. Photographs of each of the roost trees are shown in Figures 13 – 19. Information about each of the roosts is given below: •

Tree 1 (Compartment 1 (wider survey area)) was only used for resting by a single bat on one occasion when an animal was seen resting in a gap between two trunk sections.

•

The roost in Tree 2 (Compartment 2 (wider survey area)) was used erratically by common pipistrelle throughout the summer using an old dray or large stick nest. Usually only one bat was present but on one occasion in July there were two or possibly three animals. All were assumed to be males as no signs of breeding could be discerned and the site was thought to be unsuitable for breeding purposes because of its position in shade.

•

The roost in Tree 3 (Compartment 6 (proposed quarry area)) was in one or possibly two holes in the trunk and involved up to two single common pipistrelle. These animals were present at erratic intervals throughout the survey period. All were assumed to be males as no signs of breeding could be found.

•

Tree 4 (Compartments 29/34 (wider survey area)) was only used once and was disturbed by a grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis which appeared to have damaged the roost entrance and is thought to have been responsible for the lack of use. The roost was used by a single common pipistrelle.

•

Tree 5 (Compartment 29 (wider survey area)) was used occasionally throughout the survey period by single bats for daytime roosting.

•

The roost in Tree 6 (Compartment 24 (wider survey area)) was used by at least two Natterer’s bats briefly for about 10 days mainly in mid August, although the presence of at least a single bat was suspected in early June.


6


Kent Wildlife Trust

5.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The survey methods adopted for this survey have been used extensively elsewhere with consistent results and accord with current good practice guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007). 5.2 Surveys of this type are valuable in terms of helping to determine whether or not bats are likely to be present, are present, or have been present in a locality. However, the results of a survey are partially determined by the time of year at which the survey takes place. A negative or positive result at one time of year can be quite the opposite at other times of year as bats often move around from roost to roost throughout the year dependent upon a wide variety of factors (Altringham, 2003). However, even if bats themselves are not found, providing that suitable conditions are prevalent for the preservation of evidence, some signs of bat presence should remain within the survey area and as a result, roosts and feeding evidence can be found and be supplemented by methods of survey such as those used here which allow determination of animal activity when the animals are present. The methods used here were suitable for the type of survey which was requested and have produced useful results. 5.3 The results of the bat survey are much as expected, partly at least due to the inherently poor quality of the invertebrate fauna on sweet chestnut Castanea sativa (Southwood, 1961) which thereby limits the invertebrate biomass available to bats as food. 5.4 The young coppice (1-2 years old) and the rides (especially where they have some habitat variation next to them) are the main places where bats forage probably because of the much greater variety of flora and associated fauna that are found in them at this stage. Young coppice lets in light and air and allows much greater numbers of invertebrate animals to occur than later in the coppice cycle. Many invertebrates are more abundant on young plant growth than later in the stages of growth (Massee, 1965; Welch, 1969) and numbers of invertebrates are generally higher in rides and the newly-exposed field layer where there is much more light for plant growth and hence opportunities for feeding insects (Greatorex – Davis and Marrs, 1992), so opportunities for feeding bats are therefore increased. In addition, if sweet chestnut woodland is regularly coppiced, the provision of young growth and boundaries between adjoining compartments of different ages produces more prey for bats that unmanaged woodland (Buckley and Howell, 2004). 5.5 Figure 11 clearly shows the importance of the main rides, young coppice and wood edges for foraging bats, both within and outside the proposed quarry extension area, but particularly in the north of the wood. There may also be a long-eared bat commuting route in the northwest corner of the wood (Figure 5), although it could equally well just be that the animals are feeding in what is a temporarily insect-rich part of the wood where the coppice cycle and the presence of trees other than sweet chestnut provides a richer invertebrate fauna; further survey work would probably help to elucidate this aspect. 5.6 The same reasons are probably what makes the wood poor for roosting bats, since the presence of larger trees offers opportunity for bats to roost (Forestry Commission, 2005; Lacki, Hayes and Kurta, 2007). The sweet chestnut plantations in Oaken Wood have about 100 or so mature trees (personal observation) but at any one time they are often surrounded by dense stands of coppice which obscures and hides them. It is not surprising therefore that Oaken Wood, Barming, Kent. Bat Survey.

7


Kent Wildlife Trust

the main occurrence of roosts (Figure 12) is in the south-east of the wood where there are plenty of widely spaced mature oaks Quercus sp. which offer abundant roosting (and feeding) opportunities. In addition, any trees in a wood that has few big ones will mean that other species such as birds and grey squirrels compete with bats for the use of holes in mature trees. The coppice poles are no good as bat roost because of their small size and lack of features. 5.7 In terms of the results from the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area, there is negligible difference. The current distribution of roosts and feeding areas is almost certainly heavily dependent upon the stage that the coppice cycle has reached, and this could change at any time. For example, if Compartment 5 were coppiced in the next year or two, Compartment 6 would, by that time, have probably grown up enough to suppress the flora and dependent insects, whilst Compartment 5 would likely become a new focus of bat foraging and perhaps even roosting activity. 5.8 Pre-existing information for bats in the Oaken Wood area is very limited but seems to support the view that the wood is only really valuable in terms of its rides and newer coppiced areas for foraging. Records supplied by the Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre (personal communication) for an area within five kilometres of the site showed 248 records of nine species, but of these only a few fall within Ordnance Survey squares TQ7155, 7156 and 7255 which cover the wood, and may thus reflect either a lack of knowledge of bats in the area or be representative of the presence of poor habitat. It is quite likely the latter since bat records elsewhere in the record search area are quite abundant. There is therefore very little information about bats in the wood or very close to it that can be of much help with the interpretation of the results of this survey. 5.9 In terms of rarity, all British bats are far from being numerous with even common species such as the soprano pipistrelle being limited to a national population of less than 1.3 million (Battersby, 2005), although many populations are now stable or even slightly increasing (Tracking Mammals Partnership, 2008, 2009) and many also have restricted distributions both nationally (e.g. Richardson, 2000, for serotine) and on a county basis (e.g. Heathcote and Heathcote, 1994 for Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri and noctule. 5.10 The definitive work for Kent is the Kent Red Data Book (Waite,2000), which lists the following species as being important in a biodiversity / Red Data Book context: • Pipistrelles (both common and soprano) • Serotine • Noctule • Brown long-eared bat • Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentoni • Natterer’s bat • Brandt’s bat Eptesicus brandtii • Leisler’s bat • Whiskered bat 5.11 Of these species, Daubenton’s, Brandt’s / Whiskered and Leisler’s bats were not recorded during the course of the survey. Daubenton’s and Leisler’s are unlikely to be present because of lack of habitat, and the Brandt’s / Whiskered could be present as part of the indeterminate Myotis presence in the wood. Unfortunately this is impossible to determine Oaken Wood, Barming, Kent. Bat Survey.

8


Kent Wildlife Trust

further since the Myotis records for the wood were generally, with the exception of the Natterer’s bats, impossible to determine more accurately, due to the difficulty of making adequate recordings for sound analysis. 5.12 Dealing with each of the species in turn it is clear that the wood is important for feeding common pipistrelle, but less so for all the other bats. The noctule and serotine probably just take advantage of what the wood has to offer from time to time; it was conspicuous that the noctule were most active and found most easily when livestock were present in fields next to the wood. The long-eared bats are almost certainly always brown long-eared and they are apparently taking advantage of insects in richer areas such as young coppice largely in the north of the wood, and probably commute through the wood to better feeding areas elsewhere. 5.13 As far as the Natterer’s bat is concerned the roost was used on only a few occasions and contained only 1-2 animals. However, Natterer’s bats often have mixed colonies in summer (Altringham, 2003) and frequently move roosts even when breeding (Dietz, Helversen and Nill, 2006; Smith and Racey, 2005). The location was not far from the edge of the wood near grassland, which is a typical Natterer’s roost site (Smith, 2000). The bat has quite a difficult echolocation call (personal observation) because of its semi-gleaning habit, and is therefore hard to locate at times; it is probable, therefore, that the Myotis calls that were ‘glimpsed’ in the wood were from this species, but it was impossible to be sure due to the poor quality and very short length of the recordings that were made. Suffice it to say that the site was a small temporary roost and that the bats were present; if it was a male roost rather than a maternity one, then it is known (Smith, 2000) that the males are often found roosting near to a maternity colony, but this latter, if present, was not found in the area of woodland close to the known roost. 5.14 To summarise therefore, the whole of the survey area (both the proposed quarry area and the wider survey area) is considered to be of county importance as a foraging ground for common pipistrelles; the Natterer’s bat roost is also considered to be of county importance. The whole of the survey area is considered to be of local importance for all other species, although all the bats that were positively recorded at the site were Kent Red Data Book species. Foraging was concentrated along rides and in young coppice and generally the proposed quarry area was only important insofar as it contained suitable foraging or feeding habitat which would be likely to change as the coppice cycle moved around the wood.


9


Kent Wildlife Trust

6.

WILDLIFE LEGISLATION

6.1 The following is a summary of the wildlife legislation as it relates to the species discussed within this report. 6.2 This section is provided for general guidance only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, this section should not be relied upon as a definitive statement of the law.

6.3 Legal Protection for Bats in Britain 6.3.1 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) protects bats and their roosts in England, Scotland and Wales. Some parts have been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), which applies only in England and Wales, and by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which applies in Scotland. 6.3.2 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (better known as the Habitats Regulations) implements the Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora - better known as the Habitats Directive. In this legislation all bats are listed as being 'European protected species of animals'. 6.3.3

Under legislation it is an offence for any person to:

•

Intentionally kill, injure or take a bat.

•

Possess or control a live or dead bat, any part of a bat, or anything derived from a bat.

•

Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter or protection.

•

Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection.

•

Sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead bat, any part of a bat, or anything derived from a bat. It is also an offence to publish, or cause to be published, any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that they buy or sell, or intend to buy or sell, any live or dead bat, part of a bat or anything derived from a bat. Sale includes hire, barter and exchange.

•

Set and use articles capable of catching, injuring or killing a bat (for example a trap or poison), or knowingly cause or permit such an action. This includes sticky traps intended for animals other than bats.


10


Kent Wildlife Trust

REFERENCES Altringham, John D. 2003. British Bats. London, Collins New Naturalist. Bat Conservation Trust. 2007. Bat surveys: good practice guidelines. London, Bat Conservation Trust. Battersby, Jessamy(Ed.). 2005. UK mammals species status and population trends. Peterborough: JNCC / Tracking Mammals Partnership. Buckley, Peter, and Howell, Ruth. 2004. The ecological impact of sweet chestnut coppice silviculture on former ancient broadleaved woodland sites in south - east England. Peterborough, English Nature. English Nature Research Report no. 627. Corbet G. B. and Harris S. 1991. The handbook of British mammals. London, Blackwell. Dietz C., Helversen O. von, Nill, D. 2006. Handbuch der Fledermause Europas. Kosmos.

Stuttgart, Germany,

Forestry Commission. 2005. Woodland management for bats. Forestry Commission. Greatorex – Davis J. N. And Marrs R. H. The quality of coppice woods as habitats for invertebrates. In Buckley G. P. (Ed.).1992. Ecology and management of coppice woodlands. London, Chapman and Hall. Harris, S. and Yalden D. W. (Eds). 2008. Mammals of the British Isles. Handbook 4th edition. Southampton, The Mammal Society. Heathcote P. and C. 1994. The bats of Kent. Trans. Kent Field Club Volume 14. Maidstone, Kent Field Club. Lacki M., Hayes J. And Kurta A. (Editors). 2007. Bats in forests: conservation and management. Baltimore, USA. John Hopkins University Press. Masee A.M. 1965. Some features of conservation interest arising from surveys in Duffey, E. A. G. and Morris, M. G. (Eds). The conservation of invertebrates. Huntingdon, Nature Conservancy. Mitchell - Jones A. J. and McLeish A. P. 2004. Bat workers' manual. Third edition. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Mustoe S, Hill, D., Frost D. And Tucker G. Bats. In Hill, D., Fasham M ,Tucker G., Shewry M., and Shaw P. (Eds.). 2005. Handbook of biodiversity methods: survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge University Press. Ransome R. 1990. The natural history of hibernating bats.London, Croom Helm. Richardson, P. (Ed.). 2000. Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland. London, Bat Conservation Trust. Smith P. G. 2000. Habitat preference, range use and roosting ecology of Natterer’s bats (Myotis nattereri) in grassland-woodland landscape. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen. Smith P. G. and Racey P. 2005. The itinerant Natterer; physical and thermal characteristics of summer roosts of Myotis nattereri (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Journal of zoology 266, 171-180. Southwood, T. R. E. 1961. The numbers of species of insects associated with various trees. Journal of Animal Ecology 30, 1-8. Tracking Mammals Partnership. 2008. UK Mammals Update 2008. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Tracking Mammals Partnership. 2009. UK Mammals Update 2009. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Waite A. (Ed.). 2000. The Kent red data book. Maidstone, Kent County Council. Welch, R. C. 1969. Coppicing and its effects on woodland invertebrates. Devon Trust for Nature Conservation 22, 969-73. Oaken Wood, Barming, Kent. Bat Survey.

11


Kent Wildlife Trust

APPENDIX 1: KNOWN ROOSTS

No.

1

2

3

4

Date

2.7.09

19.5.09

19.5.09

23.6.09

Cpt No.

Species

Forestry Type

No of trunks

1

Fagus sylvatica

Very old (pollard?).

3

2

Quercus robur

Maiden Standard

1

OS Grid reference from GPS

Ivy present?

Hollow limbs or limb bases

Gale damaged /shattered limbs present?

Loose bark

Percentage of surrounding canopy

Notes

Trace

Absent

Absent

80%

Trace

80

Large multiple - trunked tree of edge of field.

TQ7137555963

Medium because of species and position

2+ in trunk

Absent

Trace

Absent

Absent

45%

On the edge of a clearing.

1 big hole in trunk on western side

Absent

Absent

80%

Absent

0

In open recent coppice

Probable value to bats as roosts etc.

Holes present ?

TQ7122555819

Medium to high because of physical state.

6

Castanea sativa

Maiden Standard

1

TQ7157555899

Medium / high because of hole and position

29/34

Quercus robur

Maiden Standard

2

TQ7205755231

Medium species and hole

1 on SW side

Absent

Absent

Absent

Absent

100%

Hole in trunk.

Trace

Absent

20+

Trace

Absent

95%

Right beside ride.

2+

Absent

2 to 3

60%

Trace

100%

By the track.

5

2.7.09

29

Fagus sylvatica

Maiden Standard

1

TQ7209755373

Medium because of rough bark, nooks and crannies.

6

24.6.09

24

Quercus robur

Maiden Standard

1

TQ7219055386

High; species and holes and general condition.


12


Kent Wildlife Trust


Figure 3: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing approximate route of transect (outlined in red). This is a representation only. Do not scale.


13


Kent Wildlife Trust

s eld r fi ste

k ac Tr

Ea

N

2

3 Underpass

2

1

3

3

14

Quarry

6 5

4

11

5

12

Luckhurst Farm

4

13

9 10

8

15 7

7

18

27

26

25

19

32

16 17 Ditton Common

20 21 22 23 24 29

28 33

34

31 30

Nor

t h Po

oa le R

d

TQ 7155 TQ 7255 TQ 7154 TQ 7254


Figure 4: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing distribution of all foraging common pipistrelles. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


14


Kent Wildlife Trust

s eld r fi ste

k ac Tr

Ea

N

2

3 Underpass

2

1

3

3

14

Quarry

6 5

4

11

5

12

Luckhurst Farm

4

13

9 10

8

15 7

7

18

27

26

25

19

32

16 17 Ditton Common

20 21 22 23 24 29

28 33

34

31 30

N or

t h Po

oa le R

d

TQ 7155 TQ 7255 TQ 7154 TQ 7254


Figure 5: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing distribution of all foraging soprano pipistrelles. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


15


Kent Wildlife Trust


Figure 6: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing distribution of all foraging long-eared bats. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


16


Kent Wildlife Trust

s eld r fi ste

k ac Tr

Ea

N

2

3 Underpass

2

1

3

3

14

Quarry

6 5

4

11

5

12

Luckhurst Farm

4

13

9 10

8

15 7

7

18

27

26

25

19

32

16 17 Ditton Common

20 21 22 23 24 29

28 33

34

31 30

N or

t h Po

oa le R

d

TQ 7155 TQ 7255 TQ 7154 TQ 7254


Figure 7: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing distribution of all foraging serotine bats. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


17


Kent Wildlife Trust

s eld r fi ste

k ac Tr

Ea

N

2

3 Underpass

2

1

3

3

14

Quarry

6 5

4

11

5

12

Luckhurst Farm

4

13

9 10

8

15 7

7

18

27

26

25

19

32

16 17 Ditton Common

20 21 22 23 24 29

28 33

34

31 30

N or

t h Po

oa le R

d

TQ 7155 TQ 7255 TQ 7154 TQ 7254


Figure 8: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing distribution of all foraging noctule bats. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


18


Kent Wildlife Trust

s eld r fi ste

k ac Tr

Ea

N

2

3 Underpass

2

1

3

3

14

Quarry

6 5

4

11

5

12

Luckhurst Farm

4

13

9 10

8

15 7

7

18

27

26

25

19

32

16 17 Ditton Common

20 21 22 23 24 29

28 33

34

31 30

N or

t h Po

oa le R

d

TQ 7155 TQ 7255 TQ 7154 TQ 7254


Figure 9: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing distribution of all foraging Myotis bats. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


19


Kent Wildlife Trust


Figure 10: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing distribution of all records of bats other than common pipistrelle. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


20


Kent Wildlife Trust


Figure 11: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing distribution of all bat records for all species. This is a representation only. Do not scale.


21


Kent Wildlife Trust


Figure 12: Oaken Wood, Barming. Map showing the distribution of roost trees. This is a representation only. Do not scale


22


Kent Wildlife Trust

Figure 13: Photograph showing roost Tree 1.



23


Kent Wildlife Trust


Figure 16: Photograph showing close up of the hole in roost Tree 3.


24


Kent Wildlife Trust

Figure 17: Photograph showing roost Tree 4 showing the hole half way up the trunk.



25


Kent Wildlife Trust



26
