This document summarizes soil analysis results from four trial plots on the Sefton Coast, England that are being used to study re-establishing heather habitat. Soil samples were collected and tested for pH, organic matter, magnetic susceptibility, exchangeable cations, nitrogen and phosphorus. The results show variation in properties between sites, with some having higher organic matter or exchangeable bases. However, there are no clear correlations between the soil analysis and the condition of the re-establishment techniques used at each site.

1. Rhys Turton

2. 1
Natural Sciences and Psychology
NSPNS3000 – Research Project
March 2011
Student name: Rhys Turton
Supervisor name: Jenny Jones
BIEGN3005 Honours project

3. 2
Soil properties and dune heath re-establishment, Sefton Coast,
Liverpool.
Rhys Turton, Physical Geography, LJMU 356694
Abstract
Heathland restoration has long been over looked, but with species such as the Sand Lizard
(Lacerta agilis), a BAP priority species (Moulton & Corbett 1999), being threatened a greater
interest in maintaining this native habitat, especially in England and Europe, has been the
catalyst, however exactly which way to help the habitat is under consideration. The aim of
this report is to identify characteristics of the soil in the heathland area on the Sefton Coast,
England, after lack of maintenance and competition have seen its demise of up to 80% (Price
2002). Testing pH, organic matter content, magnetic susceptibility, exchangeable cations and
plant available phosphorus and nitrogen, comparison of current reestablishment techniques
can be made to ensure optimum conditions for the site location. However with little evidence
to support optimum growth conditions no one technique can be chosen, however non-
invasive techniques such as grazing or leaving fallow show the greatest promise for heather
re-establishment.
Introduction
The aim of the research was to determine, from the soil characteristics of various trial plots
on the Sefton Coast, Merseyside, if the land can accommodate and maintain the re-
establishment of the natural heather after its lack of maintenance and competition.
This study was preliminarily outlined in a report (Smith & Small 2009) for the HLF Sefton
Coast Landscape Partnership Scheme, which focused on making a large-scale effort to re-
establish native species. The Sefton Coast area has seen an increased interest over the last
14-15 years, culminating in a series of reports to establish the overall condition of the entire
area (Edmondson & Gateley 1996, Gateley 1995). These reports focused on the lack of native
heather, caused by competition from gorse (Ulex europaeus) and wavy-hair grass
(Deschampsia flexuosa). Although the heather is itself threatened, the Sefton Coast heathland
has seen significant growth from 14ha (Edmondson et al. 1988/89) to 22.5ha (Gateley &
Michell 2004) in area. Whereas, the rest of UK has seen an 80% drop in heathland, due to
agricultural reclamation, afforestation and building developments (Price 2002). This has
resulted in a series of threatened flora and forna native only to the heathlands of Europe
(Ranwell 1972) where the need to conserve the habitat has become necessary.
The earliest evidence of human occupation of the Sefton coast are footprints, made in mud
flats approximately 7000 years ago, recently revealed by coastal erosion (Cowell et al. 1993).
Archaeological evidence shows that much of the Sefton coastland area was used as farmland
following the Viking invasion, 850AD (Cox 1896), continuing through the agricultural
revolution in the High Middle Ages (Lewis 2000). It was still being used both as graze land
and for crop growth into the late 17th
century (Coney 1995, Lewis & Stanistreet 2008),
although it was soon left unused by farmers as better quality arable land was found further
inland. By 1908 the Freshfields golf course was built, leading to leveling and building up of
the natural sand to create contours of the course. In the Second World War the government
commandeered part of the course and a military runway was built adjacent to it (Moulton &
Corbett 1999, Jupp 2006). After the war the land was left abandoned, where it fell into a state
of disrepair. After many plans for regenerating building projects were proposed and scrapped,

4. 3
in 1974 the area became part of the new Liverpool green belt. The golf course was split up
and parts were designated as a National Nature Reserve and Heath Nature Reserve,
unforunately for many years they were left unmanaged. Various reports and a series of
inquiries into lost habitat of the threatened Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis), led to the area
gaining more interest and a positive support to restoring the natural habitat.
Study Site and Sampling Strategy
Sites for sampling were specified in the report prior to this (Smith & Small, 2009) as possible
trial plot locations. These were chosen due to the different management techniques that had
been deployed in trying to re-establish heather and thus considered the best starting point for
further study. The strategy of the differing locations is that once extensive investigation was
completed, one or more of the intended methods would be rolled out across a larger area. Of
the six listed in the report, four were chosen (Table 1) based on the differences in soil
profiles, and their geographical location.
Table 1 - Locations as outlined in Smith and Small (2009)
Site Site Name Site Description
1 Ainsdale NNR
SD 29375 09892
Acid grassland in large plot turf-
stripped in 1992.
2 Freshfields Dune Heath Nature Reserve (1)
SD 29738 09067
Grazed hummocky acid grassland.
3 Freshfields Dune Heath Nature Reserve (2)
SD 29331 09014
Gorse community in small plot turf-
stripped in 2008.
4 Freshfields Dune Heath Nature Reserve (3)
SD 29538 09061
Grazed acid grassland.

5. 4
OS map showing site locations - Fig. 1a

6. 5
Aerial Photograph showing site locations – Fig. 1b
The most in-depth report (Gateley 1995) stated that the soil pH fluctuated sizeably but had a
mean of 4.00 at a 10cm depth, heather-rooting depth, which can be backed up by other
sources (Hall & Folland, 1967). Although no records show detailed profiles he also reports
seeing pale yellow unstructured sand at this depth.
The sites studied in this project are in different stages
of management, from open acidic grassland to turf-
stripped land. The reason for this is the drive to re-
establish the heather, and to remove competition,
however there were no tests to derive if this was an
acceptable method, or even if the heather would grow
in these new areas.
To collect data, a sampling strategy was derived based
upon only one grid coordinate. As a result, a 30x30m
area was established around the coordinate, which is
the usual size for a trial plot. Permission constraints,
allowed the collection of only 10 samples at each
location, making a total sample size of 40. As a result
a sampling pattern was devised, which included the
largest possible range without exceeding the given
area (Fig. 2). Plots were taken at 0m, and every 10m thereafter along the outside transect
lines [1-7], one was taken at the grid coordinate [8], and the last two were taken at right
angles from that point, at 8m.
Sampling Strategy – Fig. 2

7. 6
Field And Laboratory Methods
After location of the site, based on the grid references, which are shown above, the sampling
strategy was set up accordingly. A small area of ground vegetation at each sampling node
was cleared by hand to ensure easy access to the soil surface. A Dutch auger was used to
collect a sample of 0-20cm of the soil profile. Each of the samples were then put into airtight
bags. The surrounding area was then studied for basic relief, vegetation and any other
observations.
A soil pit was then dug at each location in order to record the soil profile detail. This
consisted of a pit 0.5 x 0.5m square with a depth of approximately 1m. The faces were
cleaned with a trowel, and the horizon details were recorded. Munsell colour codes were
recorded in the field for all horizons.
The samples were returned to the laboratory and were air dried at 20°C (ambient room
temperature) for 5 days. The sample was disaggregated gently with a pestle and mortar and
sieved through 2mm mesh.
At this point the samples were studied for their colour again, composition, grain size,
lithology and organic matter content. The samples were tested for six variables: pH, organic
matter content, magnetic susceptibility, exchangeable cations, plant available phosphorus and
nitrogen (Rowell, 1994).
The pH was determined by a 1:2.5 soil:water suspension, using 10g of sample and 25ml of
deionised water. A calibrated pH meter was used and samples were measured three times.
The soil organic matter content was determined by the loss on ignition (LOI) test. This
consisted of weight losses over a series of oven/furnace sessions, using the equation:
Mass specific magnetic susceptibility was determined using the following equation (Walden
et al., 1999):
Exchangeable sodium, potassium and calcium were determined with a flame photometer,
after a 1:25 solution extraction by 1mol ammonium acetate. These samples were then shaken
for 45 minutes. They were then filtered through Whatman 1 and 44 filter papers, and passed
though the flame photometer.
Magnesium concentration was tested with the same samples. The samples were put through
an AAS (Atomic Absorption Spectrometer), where the concentration in parts per million
(ppm) were calculated.
All exchangeable cations were then converted into meq/100g, and although the accepted term
for cations in soil, secondary data is specified in mg/100g, so they were converted for
comparison.
Plant available nitrogen was determined by a 1:2 soil:water suspension, using 10g of sample
and 20ml of deionised water. Nitrogen was then calculated using a Nitrachek nitrogen meter
and nitrogen strips. Samples for nitrogen were too low to be fully recorded, and so averages
were taken.
Plant available phosphorus was tested, using a phosphorus meter, however most samples
were too low to be recorded, and so were not taken.

8. 7
Results
Table 2a - Ainsdale NNR profile description
Grid ref.: SD 2937009888 Altitude: 29m
Land-use: Bulldozed A horizon, left fallow.
Soil type: Anthropogenic sand based soil.
Horizon
thickness (cm)
Horizon
notation
Key characteristics
+3 Root Mat
0-28 C Light yellow (10YR6/4) sand; no identifiable
structure; very slight organic matter; common fine and
medium roots. Few fine distinct orange red (7.5YR5/6)
mottles. Clear straight boundary to:
28-52 Burnt
Horizon
Ash grey (10YR5/4) Burnt ash; no identifiable
structure; no organic matter; no roots. Merging
irregular boundary to:
52+ C Light yellow (10YR6/4) Sand; no identifiable
structure; no organic matter; no roots. Merging
irregular boundary.
Table 2b - Fresh Field No. 1 profile description
Grid ref.: SD 2972609063 Altitude: 21m
Land-use: Grazing and grassland.
Soil type: Immature brown earth.
Horizon
thickness (cm)
Horizon
notation
Key characteristics
0-24 A Light grey (5YR4/2) Hummocky sand; no identifiable
structure; slight organic matter; few medium roots.
Clear wavy boundary to:
24-32 B Yellow grey (7.5YR4/3) Hummocky sand; no
identifiable structure; slight organic matter; no fine
roots. Merging wavy boundary to:
32+ C Light yellow (10YR3/6) Sand; no identifiable
structure; no organic matter; no roots. Few iron
concretions. Merging irregular boundary.

9. 8
Table 2c - Fresh Field No. 2 profile description
Grid ref.: SD 2934109004 Altitude: 16m
Land-use: Bulldozed A horizon, left fallow.
Soil type: Podzol.
Horizon
thickness (cm)
Horizon
notation
Key characteristics
0-18 B Light grey (10YR3/3) Sand; no identifiable structure;
slight organic matter; few fine roots. Few fine distinct
iron red (7.5YR5/6) mottles. Merging irregular
boundary to:
18-39 Bs Red (7.5YR5/6) Iron horizon; no identifiable structure;
no organic matter; few medium roots. Few medium
distinct iron red (7.5YR5/6) mottles. Abundant iron
and manganese concretions. Merging straight
boundary to:
39+ C Yellow sand (10YR3/3) Sand; no identifiable
structure; no organic matter; no roots. Few fine distinct
iron red (7.5YR5/6) mottles. Few manganese
concretions. Merging irregular boundary.
Table 2d - Fresh Field No. 3 profile description
Grid ref.: SD 2950009047 Altitude: 21m
Land-use: Grazing and general pasture.
Soil type: Acidic brown earth.
Horizon
thickness (cm)
Horizon
notation
Key characteristics
0-11 A Light grey (10YR3/3) Sand; no identifiable structure;
moderate organic matter; common medium roots.
Sharp straight boundary to:
11-18 Ae Very light grey (10YR4/4) Sand; no identifiable
structure; slight organic matter; few fine roots. Few
iron concretions. Merging straight boundary to:
18-30 B Yellow grey (10YR5/3) Sand; no identifiable
structure; slight organic matter; no roots. Few large
prominent iron red (7.5YR5/6) mottles. Clear wavy
boundary to:
30+ C Yellow sand (10YR4/4) Sand; no identifiable
structure; no organic matter; no roots. Common fine
faint iron red (7.5YR5/6) mottles. Common iron
concretions. Clear straight boundary.

10. 9
Fig. 3a – Ainsdale Soil Profile
Fig. 3b – Freshfields 1 Soil Profile

11. 10
Fig. 3c - Freshfields 2 Soil Profile
Fig. 3d – Freshfields Soil Profile

12. 11
pH varies considerably, over 0.5pH in one case, however the Ainsdale site and Freshfields 3
have smaller ranges. The means show the pH of the Ainsdale site and Freshfields 2 are more
neutral than the acidic Freshfields 1 and 3 sites.
Loss on ignition varies in excess of 4% in some cases, but averages show that the Ainsdale
site and Freshfields 2 have lower organic matter content than the other Freshfield sites.

13. 12
Magnetic susceptability is low overall, but Freshfields site 1 has the highest magnetic
susceptibility, and ranges.
Sodium levels are highest in Freshfields site 1 and 3, the sites left fallow. The sodium levels
vary equally throughout the sites.

14. 13
Potassium levels are highest on Freshfields 1 and 3. Most sites have small ranges, but
Freshfields 2 has ranges varying from 1 to 6 mg/100g.
Calcium levels are highest in Ainsdale and Freshfields 1 sites, but most sites have small
ranges while Freshfields 1 has a range between 20 to 60 mg/100g.

15. 14
Magnesium levels are highest in Ainsdale and Freshfields 1 sites, although Freshfields 2 and
3 have levels very close to the higher sites.
Table 3 - Total exchangeable bases calculations
TEB (mg/100g)
Ainsdale 31.39
Freshfields 1 41.57
Freshfields 2 21.26
Freshfields 3 24.90
Although showing varying TEB values, there is no apparent correlation between these values
and the condition of the sites.
Table 4 - Plant available Nitrogen means and ranges of 10 samples
Site Nitrogen
ppm
Ainsdale 5.4
Freshfields 1 6
Freshfields 2 6.4
Freshfields 3 5
The average plant available nitrogen across all sites is 5.7 ppm. There appears to be no
correlation between bulldozed sites and nitogen at the site.
Table 5 – Standard Error table
pH LOI Magnetics Na K Ca Mg
Ainsdale 0.01298 0.11357 0.01185 0.15385 0.19121 2.20793 0.02145
Freshfields 1 0.05586 0.38071 0.03846 0.1797 0.15156 4.1289 0.03213
Freshfileds 2 0.05641 0.4795 0.00814 0.23213 0.45114 1.19543 0.0448
Freshfields 3 0.01881 0.21813 0.01566 0.29469 0.34289 1.26208 0.01904

16. 15
Standard error for all the sites and tests are relitively low. The highest error is 2.2% for the
Ainsdale calcium test.
Discussion
Heather has a preferred environment of 3-5 pH (Clarke 1997), with low calcium and lower
levels of other cations (Edmondson, et al., 1988/89). But the most recent remediation plans to
reduce competition from other species, yet there is serious concern that it was at the
detriment of these factors.
The pH of the samples collected (Fig. 4) are all within the range of preferred chemistry,
however, the Ainsdale site is just over with 5.05 pH, meaning it is too neutral. The site was
bulldozed in 1992, and with levels of the other sites being nearer 3.5-4 pH, the most likely
cause of this is due to the bulldozing activity that changed the ground make up. As the top
levels of soil are removed, leaching can occur and the pH high C horizon (James, 1993) can
mix with the top horizon. Freshfields site 2 was also bulldozed in 2008 (Table 1), and of the
three Freshfields sites, this has the highest pH level thus correlating that, bulldozing may be
raising the levels. The levels of pH vary highly in the Freshfields 1 and 2 sites, of up to half a
degree, a factor previous papers experienced, as levels of organic matter makes testing is
often difficult (Gateley, 1995 & Gateley & Michell, 2004).
The organic matter content of the sites (Fig. 5) show varied levels of organic matter. The
Ainsdale site has an average of 1%, and Freshfields 2 has an average of 2%. These levels are
to be expected as the top soil layers have been removed, confirming that the earlier bulldozed
Ainsdale site has yet to recover from its removal. Whilst again varied, of up to 4%,
Freshfields 1 has the highest organic matter content with an average of 4%, and Freshfields 3
with 3%, however, these levels are comparatively small compared to other soils, and while
the sand subsoil does not breakdown in the same way (Wray & Cope, 1948), the levels of
organic matter are still low. This is most likely due to succession, as heathland produces lots
of organic matter, where its competitor gorse (Ulex europaeus) drops less organic matter. The
magnetic susceptibility values (Fig. 6) show fairly similar levels of ferrous iron oxides
content. The notable exception is Freshfields 1, which has small concretions within the C
horizon (Table 2b), which can cause readings similar to the ones for this site (Walden et al,
1999). Although this is a noted difference, the levels of iron have little effect on the heathland
remediation.
Levels of cations on the soil have a large effect on the heather, which is an early coloniser,
preferring soils with little or no cation presence (Salisbury, 1925). Calcium is often the
hardest to leach out, and this is reflected in the results (Fig. 7c). Despite possible high
leaching rates brought on by the bulldozing of the Ainsdale site and the increased infiltration
rates, the levels are relatively high at 28mg/100g, while the Freshfields 2 and 3 sites have
very low levels, 18 and 19mg/100g respectively. Freshfields site 1 however has an average of
35mg/100g, but the levels vary from 20 to 60mg/100g. These levels are more likely to be
seen in highly developed soils (Sturgess & Atkinson, 1993), and although this may be the
case, it is likely that the highest reading may have been an anomaly, or from calcium release
from shell based materials within the sand.
Levels of the other 3 cations tested have similar values (Fig. 7a, 7b & 7d), with Freshfields 1
having consecutively the highest readings. Freshfields site 3 also has levels reflecting
Freshfields 1, with the lowest levels of calcium and magnesium. Both these sites seem to be
the opposite of what is expected from leachable cations. The usual absorption sequence rates
dictate that Ca>Mg>K>Na (De Graaf et al, 2009), however, levels of magnesium at these
two sites have dropped to less than that of any of the other cations. Both these sites were left
fallow, and although both have acidic pH levels they have a ready supply of organic matter to

17. 16
replace any lost, but peculiarly not with magnesium. Gorse (Ulex europaeus) takes up a lot of
magnesium for growth, and it is apparent that the gorse is most likely to be causing this
problem. The two sites have been left for some time and have slowly started to change to fit
the gorse competition, and the higher levels of the other cations appear to be due to this.
Thus, these changes make the area less suitable for heather growth as the preferred chemical
properties have been changed. This can be seen by the total exchangeable bases (Table 3),
where Freshfields 1 has a very high level.
The standard error of the tests (Table 5) shows that the error is very low, with 97%
confidence at worst, meaning that the results are correctly representative of each site.
The two bulldozed sites may have higher leaching rates due to the removal of topsoil, and as
a response, the cation levels have decreased in line with normal expected rates. This removal
of soil has given the chemical properties time to return to the preferred levels, however in
doing so this technique has removed the organic content which is needed for heather growth
and the seed bank (Smith & Small, 2009). Along with this the pH levels have started to
change, with the Ainsdale levels approaching the highest they can be to sustain heather
growth. Consequently, this process has been used before with varying success (Allison &
Ausden, 2004 & 2006), although the only successful record of this has been when next to a
pre-existing heathland area (Allison & Ausden, 2004). This is most likely due to the seeds
being spread over the area, and propagating quickly, however this is unlikely to be successful
in the Sefton coast area due to the vast competition species throughout (Appendix Table 8
[Woodvale]). A programme of seeding the area post bulldozing may have the required effects
(Marrs, 1985). Although the Ainsdale site may not be viable for this method, a soil
acidification method may be suitable.
Soil acidification methods have been used in conjunction with topsoil removal before (Diaz
et al, 2006 & 2008). But, it was deemed a failure as the Ericoid mycorrhizal fungus
relationship broke down after the lack of fungus repopulation. Soil acidification on its own
has proven more successful as the process allows for the optimum pH levels, while removal
of nutrients is kept to a minimum. The chemical acidification technique has been used in this
area before (Lawson et al, 2004) with just a 5% population increase rates. These amounts are
so low, that they have to be discounted as other factors may have changed the outcome
(Marrs et al, 1998). A later paper reports the use of plant material to fix pH (Owen et al,
1999). Unfortunately, this brought in foreign seed banks, and although heather population
was up initially, competition soon took over (Bakker & Berendse, 1999).
Another management technique is soil inversion, which is reported to bring up more calcium
from the sand while keeping pH levels closer to preferred levels, which would stop potential
competition (Hawley et al, 2008). But, this method would remove the native seed bank
(Smith & Small, 2009) that would feed the regeneration and a situation similar to the topsoil
removal would occur. Many depths have been suggested going down to 1m (Hawley et al,
2008), however the pH sharply rises at a depth of 30cm (James, 1993). To this end, an
inversion of 30cm would be best, as the pH would not be adversely affected, while the topsoil
of average 30cm depth (Edmondson & Gateley, 1996) would keep the seed bank active.
A well known method for dry heathland establishment is nitrogen fixing, however with the
nitrogen results (Table 4) not showing any correlations, this method needs a more in depth
study, although previous papers (Van Den Berg et al, 2008) have stated there is no real
permanent retention. Burning heathland is another well-used method, which also increase
nitrogen and phosphate levels short term (Mohamed et al, 2007). Both these methods run the
risk of increased competition from nitrogen fixing plants (Webb & Vermaat, 1990). Even
then, this method has been seen to remove nutrients from the soil long term (Chapman 1967
& Appendix Table 7 [Cloven-Le-Dale]).

18. 17
There are a few non-invasive methods of management though, both of which are used within
the sites of this paper, and have proven to be effective. The first is sheep grazing, as most
breeds leave heather alone, due to its waxy exterior where the competitive gorse (Ulex
europaeus) and wavy-hair grass (Deschampsia flexuosa) are grazed instead (Smith & Small,
2009). This method has historically not been given credence due to lack of research. Despite
this, it has recently been proven as a successful method for control (Newton, et al., 2009), and
although a completely native habitat will never return, heather has been seen to repopulate
considerably. This method, like many others needs to be kept under close observation though,
as over grazing will result in compaction and trampling of heather plants.
The second non-invasive method is leaving the site fallow. Although this method seems
counter-productive, papers have seen a marked increase in heather population by this method,
both in the last 20 years nationally (Hawley et al, 2008) and on similar sites tested (Ross et
al, 2003).
Conclusion
The soils of the Sefton coast, and heathland in England are sporadically documented. With
little or no information on the optimum soil conditions for heathland growth, no conclusive
opinion on any heathland restoration technique can be given. It is clear that the removal of
topsoil has not been a totally successful method, but if this action had not been taken, heather
would have had a harder time growing in the high competition areas. All of the available
methods can aid in some way to better manage the heathland, however it is clear that each
carries problems. Freshfields sites 1 and 3 are grazed sites, and as this study shows, this
method seems to be the best current method for maintaining the heather populations, without
causing the removal of any nutrients in the soils. Moving forward, it is clear that this area of
Sefton coast can accommodate reestablishment of the natural heather, but whilst there are
many techniques for aiding the recovery and re-establishment of heathland, the correct
method needs to be chosen carefully and trial plots of proposed methods should be tested
first.
References
Allison, M., & Ausden, M., 2004. Successful use of topsoil removal and soil amelioration to create heathland
vegetation. Bioogical Conservation, Volume 120, 2. pp. 221-228.
Allison, M., & Ausden, M., 2006. Effects of removing the ltter and humic layers on heathland establishment
following plantation removal. Bioogical Conservation, Volume 127, 2. pp. 177-182.
Bakker, J.P., & Berendse, F., 1999. Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and
heathland communities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 14, 2. pp. 63-68.
Chapman, S.B., 1967. Nutrient budgets for a dry heath ecosystem in south of England. Journal of Ecology,
Volume 55. pp. 677-689.
Clarke, C.T., 1997. Role of soils in determining sites for lowland heathland reconstruction in England.
Restoration Ecology, Volume 5. pp. 256-264.
Coney, A. 1995. Liverpool dung: the magic wand of agriculture. Lancashire Local Historian, Lancashire. pp
15-23.
Cowell, R.W., Milles, A. & Roberts, G. 1993. Prehistoric Footprints on Formby Point Beach, Merseyside. In
(Middleton, R., (Ed)), North West Wetlands Survey Annual Report 1993. pp 43–48.
Cox, E. W. 1896. Norman Remains found at Sephton Church. Transactions of the Historic Society of
Lancashire and Cheshire, 47. pp 103-106.

19. 18
De Graaf, M.C.C., Bobbink, R., Smits, N.A.C., Van Diggelen, R., & Roelofs, J.G.M., 2009. Biodiversity,
vegetation gradients and key biochemical processes in the heathland landscape. Biological Conservation,
Volume 142, 10. pp. 2191-2201.
Diaz, A., Green, I., Benvenuto, M. & Tibbett, M., 2006. Are Ericoid mycorrhizas a Factor in the Success of
Calluna vulgaris Heathland Restoration? Restoration Ecology, Volume 14, 2. pp. 187-195.
Diaz, A., Green, I., & Tibbett, M., 2008. Re-creation of heathland on improved pasture using topsoil removal
and sulphur amendments: Edaphic drivers and impacts on Ericoid mycorrhizas. Biological Conservation,
Volume 141, 6. pp. 1928-1635.
Edmondson, S.E., Gateley, P.S. & Nissenbaum, D.A., 1988/89. National Sand Dune Vegetation Survey,
Sefton Coast, 1988/89. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.
Edmondson, S.E. & Gateley, P.S., 1996. Dune heath on the Sefton Coast Sand Dune System, Merseyside, UK.
In (Jones, P.S., Healy, M.G. and Williams, A.T. (Eds)) Studies in European Coastal Management. Samara
Publishing Ltd & The European Union for Coastal Conservation, Florida.
Gateley, P.S., 1995. Sefton Coast Heath Survey 1993-1994. Report to Sefton Metropolitan Borough
Council, Bootle.
Gateley, P.S. 1996. Sefton Coast Heath Survey 1994-1995. Report to Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council,
Bootle.
Gateley, P.S. & Michell, P.E., 2004. Sand Dune Survey Of The Sefton Coast, 2003/4. Report to Sefton
Coast Partnership.
Hall, B.R., & Folland, C.J., 1967. Soils Of The South-West Lancashire Coastal Plain. Memoirs Of The Soil
Survey Conducted By The Agricultural Research Council, Harpenden.
Halley, J.J., 1988. The Squadrons of the Royal Air Force & Commonwelth 1918-1988. UK: Air Britain
(Historians) Ltd, Kent.
Hawley, G., Anderson, P., Gash, M., Smith, P., Higham, N., Alonso, I., Ede, J. & Holloway, J., 2008. Impact of
heathland restoration and re-creation techniques on soil characteristics and the historical environment. Natural
England Research Report 010. Natural England, Sheffield.
http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/main/dologin.jsp - 01/10/10
James, P.A., 1993. Chapter 5 - Soils & Nutrient Cycling. In (Atkinson, D. & Houston, J.) The Sand Dunes of
the Sefton Coast. National Museums and Galleries of Merseyside, Liverpool.
Jupp, S., 2006. Sefton Coast SSSI and SAC 5 year work programme RAF Woodvale. Defence Estates
Environmental Support Team, North England.
Lawson, C.S., Ford, M.A., Mitchley, J., & Warren, J.M., 2004. The establishment of heathland vegetation on
ex-arable land: the response of Calluna vulgaris to soil acidification. Biological Conservation, Volume 116, 3.
pp. 409-416.
Lewis, J. M. 2000. Medieval Earthworks of the Hundred of West Derby: Tenurial evidence and physical
structure. British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 310, Oxford.
Lewis, J.M. & Stanistreet, J.E., 2008. Sand And Sea: Sefton's Coastal Heritage: Archaeology, History and
Environment of a Landscape in North West England. Sefton Council, Formby.
Marrs, R.H. (1985). Techniques for reducing soil fertility for nature conservation purposes: a review in relation
to research at Roper’s Heath, Suffolk, England. Biological Conservation, volume 34. pp 307-332.
Marrs, R.H., Snow, C.S.R., Owen, K.M. & Evans, C.E., 1998. Heathland and acid grassland creation on arable

20. 19
soils at Minsmere: identification of potential problems and a test of cropping to impoverish soils. Biological
Conservation, volume 85. pp 9-18.
Mohamed, A., Hardtle, W., Jirjahn, B., Niemeyer, T. & von Oheimb, G., 2007. Effects of prescribed burning on
plant available nutrients in dry heathland ecosystems. Plant Ecology, Volume 189. pp. 279-289.
Moulton, N. & Corbett, K., 1999. Sand Lizard Conservation Handbook (Species Recovery Program). English
Nature, London.
Newton, A.C., Stewart, G.B., Myers, G., Diaz, A., Lake, S., Bullock, J.M., & Pullin, A.S., 2009. Impacts on
grazing on lowland heathland in north-west Europe. Biological Conservation, Volume 142, 5. pp. 935-947.
Owen, K.M., Marrs, R.H., Snow, C.S.R., & Evans, C.E., 1999. Soil acidification - the use of sulphur and acidic
plant materials to acidify arable soils for the recreation of heathland and acidic grassland at Minsmere, UK.
Biological Conservation, Volume 87, 1. pp. 105-121.
Price, E., 2002. Grassland and Heathland Habitats. Routledge, London.
Ranwell, D.S., 1972. Ecology Of Salt Marshes And Sand Dunes. Chapman And Hall, London.
Ross, S., Adamson, H., & Moon, A., 2003. Evaluating management techniques for controlling Molinia caerulea
and enhancing Calluna vulgaris on upland wet heathland in northern England, UK. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, Volume 97, 1-3. pp. 39-49.
Rowell, D.L., 1994. Soil Science: Methods & Applications. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
Salisbury, E.J., 1925. Notes on the edaphic succession in sand dune with special reference to the time factor.
Journal of Ecology, Volume 13. pp. 322-328.
Smith, PH. & Small, R.W., 2009. Sefton Coast Landscape Partnership Scheme: Dine-Heath Restoration Project.
HLF Sefton Coast Landscape Partnership Scheme, Stage 2.
Sturgess, P. & Atkinson, D., 1993. The clear-felling of sand-dune plantations: soil and vegetational processes in
habitat restoration. Biological Conservation, 66. pp 171-183.
Van Den Berg, L.J.L., Peters, C.J.H., Ashmore, M.R,M., & Roelofs, J.G.M., 2008. Reduced nitrogen has a
greater effect than oxidised nitrogen on dry heathland vegetation. Environmental Pollution, Volume 154, 3. pp.
359-369.
Walden, J., OldField, F. & Smith, J. 1999. Environmental Magnetism - A Practical Guide. Quaternary Research
Association Technical Guide, No. 6.
Webb, N.R., & Vermaat, A.H., 1990. Changes in vegetational diversity on remnant heathland fragments.
Biological Conservation, Volume 53, 4. pp. 253-264.
Wray, D.A. & Cope, F.W., 1948. The Geology of Southport and Formby. Memoir of the Geological Survey of
Great Britain, sheets 75 & 83, HMSO, London, 54.

21. 20
Appendix
Appendix Table 1 - pH raw data
Sample pH1 pH2 pH3 Average Antilog Mean pH
A1 4.98 5.03 5.04 5.02 103912.23 5.04
A2 4.85 5.10 5.02 4.99 97723.72
A3 5.08 4.99 5.08 5.05 112201.85
A4 4.95 5.08 5.14 5.06 113937.49
A5 5.01 5.01 5.03 5.02 103912.23
A6 5.06 5.11 5.00 5.06 113937.49
A7 5.00 5.03 4.89 4.97 94044.49
A8 5.08 5.12 5.11 5.10 126862.52
A9 5.09 5.09 5.06 5.08 120226.44
A10 5.10 5.05 5.07 5.07 118394.99
F11 3.62 3.78 3.81 3.74 5453.39 3.83
F12 4.06 3.97 3.72 3.92 8254.04
F13 3.62 3.54 3.60 3.59 3860.71
F14 3.98 3.89 4.21 4.03 10633.27
F15 3.89 3.90 3.83 3.87 7470.22
F16 4.00 3.87 3.84 3.90 8004.48
F17 3.91 3.63 3.62 3.72 5248.07
F18 3.43 3.21 3.71 3.45 2818.38
F19 3.60 4.01 4.11 3.91 8066.16
F110 3.81 3.98 3.91 3.90 7943.28
F21 3.75 3.83 3.81 3.80 6261.33 3.96
F22 3.72 3.84 3.76 3.77 5933.81
F23 4.07 4.04 4.00 4.04 10880.95
F24 3.61 3.94 3.82 3.79 6165.95
F25 4.02 4.12 4.04 4.06 11481.54
F26 3.79 4.64 4.07 4.17 14677.99
F27 4.19 4.22 4.20 4.20 15971.04
F28 3.60 3.81 3.71 3.71 5089.40
F29 3.83 3.80 3.82 3.82 6556.42
F210 3.84 3.87 3.88 3.86 7300.18
F31 3.42 3.50 3.47 3.46 2906.25 3.52
F32 3.46 3.49 3.49 3.48 3019.95
F33 3.57 3.52 3.54 3.54 3494.08
F34 3.49 3.46 3.42 3.46 2861.98
F35 3.62 3.64 3.63 3.63 4265.80
F36 3.47 3.46 3.48 3.47 2951.21
F37 3.44 3.52 3.49 3.48 3043.22
F38 3.60 3.60 3.59 3.60 3950.63
F39 3.58 3.47 3.54 3.53 3388.44
F310 3.49 3.52 3.51 3.51 3211.19

22. 21
Appendix Table 2 - Loss on ignition (LOI) raw data
Sample Soil Weight
Loss In
Furnace LOI Mean
(g) (g) (%) (%)
A1 17.468 0.240 1.379 0.895
A2 18.466 0.150 0.814
A3 18.379 0.130 0.709
A4 19.536 0.160 0.821
A5 20.863 0.120 0.576
A6 22.308 0.140 0.629
A7 18.375 0.300 1.640
A8 20.639 0.130 0.631
A9 19.542 0.210 1.078
A10 19.368 0.130 0.673
F11 18.577 0.610 3.316 4.121
F12 18.813 0.720 3.868
F13 16.333 0.600 3.713
F14 18.244 0.570 3.153
F15 17.345 0.770 4.502
F16 16.018 0.690 4.384
F17 12.414 0.870 7.387
F18 16.752 0.670 4.045
F19 13.919 0.450 3.388
F110 20.496 0.700 3.451
F21 17.130 0.180 1.060 1.968
F22 16.890 0.220 1.308
F23 19.393 0.160 0.829
F24 13.379 0.680 5.223
F25 16.071 0.200 1.270
F26 17.519 0.200 1.147
F27 16.213 0.370 2.357
F28 16.078 0.660 4.181
F29 15.581 0.180 1.167
F210 17.730 0.200 1.138
F31 18.684 0.580 3.143 2.817
F32 19.376 0.550 2.870
F33 16.839 0.690 4.166
F34 19.956 0.480 2.425
F35 16.810 0.570 3.442
F36 19.726 0.580 2.971
F37 20.104 0.550 2.772
F38 18.428 0.300 1.642
F39 18.231 0.420 2.325
F310 18.010 0.430 2.416

23. 22
Appendix Table 3 - Magnetics raw data
Sample Soil Mass K Connected
(g)
(x10-5
SI
UNITS) (x10-6
m3
kg-1
)
A1 13.147 11.5 0.087
A2 14.330 6.5 0.045
A3 14.766 10.5 0.071
A4 15.230 12.0 0.079
A5 14.216 14.5 0.102
A6 14.095 5.5 0.039
A7 13.071 11.0 0.084
A8 14.597 24.0 0.164
A9 14.013 16.5 0.118
A10 14.270 17.5 0.123
F11 12.959 40.0 0.309
F12 12.672 43.0 0.339
F13 12.635 20.0 0.158
F14 12.496 28.5 0.228
F15 10.774 19.5 0.181
F16 11.963 20.0 0.167
F17 11.698 13.5 0.115
F18 12.464 26.0 0.209
F19 11.907 13.5 0.113
F110 13.922 70.5 0.506
F21 13.310 5.5 0.041
F22 12.876 -0.5 0.000
F23 13.575 2.0 0.015
F24 11.507 8.5 0.074
F25 12.485 -1.5 0.000
F26 12.742 1.0 0.008
F27 11.287 6.0 0.053
F28 11.936 3.5 0.029
F29 13.179 1.0 0.008
F210 12.973 -4.0 0.000
F31 12.151 14.5 0.119
F32 11.873 17.5 0.147
F33 11.496 19.5 0.170
F34 12.566 18.5 0.147
F35 11.516 7.0 0.061
F36 12.441 7.0 0.056
F37 12.250 7.0 0.057
F38 12.511 4.0 0.032
F39 12.678 8.0 0.063
F310 12.498 7.0 0.056

24. 23
Appendix Table 4 - Raw data for Sodium and Potassium cations
Na
Reading
Na
Concentration
Na
Concentration
K
Reading
K
Concentration
K
Concentration
ppm mg/100g meq/100g ppm mg/100g meq/100g
A1 0.317 0.78 0.03 0.761 1.88 0.05
A2 0.426 1.04 0.05 0.882 2.15 0.06
A3 0.317 0.79 0.03 0.882 2.19 0.06
A4 0.670 1.68 0.07 1.010 2.53 0.06
A5 0.268 0.67 0.03 0.617 1.54 0.04
A6 0.402 1.01 0.04 0.665 1.66 0.04
A7 0.817 1.98 0.09 1.379 3.34 0.09
A8 0.341 0.83 0.04 0.705 1.71 0.04
A9 0.756 1.87 0.08 1.194 2.95 0.08
A10 0.426 1.03 0.04 0.697 1.69 0.04
F11 0.658 1.65 0.07 1.708 4.27 0.11
F12 0.719 1.74 0.08 1.555 3.77 0.10
F13 0.903 2.23 0.10 1.643 4.06 0.10
F14 0.756 1.86 0.08 1.772 4.37 0.11
F15 0.829 2.10 0.09 2.076 5.25 0.13
F16 0.756 1.88 0.08 1.740 4.32 0.11
F17 1.475 3.66 0.16 2.020 5.01 0.13
F18 0.878 2.13 0.09 2.068 5.01 0.13
F19 0.951 2.37 0.10 1.684 4.19 0.11
F110 0.853 2.14 0.09 1.676 4.20 0.11
F21 0.731 1.79 0.08 0.866 2.12 0.05
F22 0.804 2.00 0.09 0.898 2.24 0.06
F23 0.341 0.83 0.04 0.449 1.09 0.03
F24 1.243 3.08 0.13 2.381 5.89 0.15
F25 0.353 0.88 0.04 0.545 1.35 0.03
F26 0.792 1.96 0.09 0.689 1.71 0.04
F27 0.792 1.95 0.08 1.482 3.65 0.09
F28 1.134 2.85 0.12 1.259 3.16 0.08
F29 0.658 1.65 0.07 1.042 2.61 0.07
F210 0.538 1.33 0.06 0.625 1.54 0.04
F31 0.841 2.11 0.09 1.154 2.90 0.07
F32 0.780 1.96 0.09 1.146 2.88 0.07
F33 1.402 3.47 0.15 2.060 5.10 0.13
F34 1.585 3.93 0.17 1.844 4.57 0.12
F35 1.878 4.60 0.20 2.141 5.25 0.13
F36 0.756 1.86 0.08 1.162 2.86 0.07
F37 1.304 3.25 0.14 1.547 3.86 0.10
F38 0.878 2.13 0.09 1.371 3.32 0.09
F39 1.317 3.25 0.14 1.451 3.58 0.09
F310 1.341 3.34 0.15 2.309 5.75 0.15

25. 24
Appendix Table 5 - Raw data for Calcium and Magnesium cations
Ca
Reading
Ca
Concentration
Ca
Concentration Mg Conc.
Mg
Concentration
Mg
Concentration
ppm mg/100g meq/100g mg/L mg/100g meq/100g
A1 9.841 24.31 1.22 4.775 0.48 0.04
A2 7.936 19.38 0.97 3.444 0.34 0.03
A3 13.010 32.33 1.62 3.187 0.32 0.03
A4 9.841 24.65 1.23 3.717 0.37 0.03
A5 8.571 21.43 1.07 3.966 0.40 0.03
A6 13.010 32.53 1.63 2.764 0.28 0.02
A7 7.936 19.22 0.96 2.531 0.25 0.02
A8 11.740 28.55 1.43 3.822 0.38 0.03
A9 14.280 35.28 1.76 4.229 0.42 0.04
A10 16.190 39.30 1.96 3.879 0.39 0.03
F11 16.500 41.25 2.06 3.777 0.38 0.03
F12 8.888 21.53 1.08 2.838 0.28 0.02
F13 10.470 25.86 1.29 3.006 0.30 0.03
F14 9.841 24.26 1.21 2.883 0.29 0.02
F15 22.850 57.82 2.89 4.254 0.43 0.04
F16 16.190 40.15 2.01 3.795 0.38 0.03
F17 21.580 53.52 2.68 6.078 0.61 0.05
F18 13.330 32.29 1.61 4.284 0.43 0.04
F19 9.523 23.71 1.19 3.125 0.31 0.03
F110 10.150 25.43 1.27 3.034 0.30 0.03
F21 5.714 14.00 0.70 0.788 0.08 0.01
F22 5.396 13.44 0.67 0.664 0.07 0.01
F23 6.031 14.70 0.73 0.799 0.08 0.01
F24 7.301 18.07 0.90 3.675 0.37 0.03
F25 6.984 17.36 0.87 1.227 0.12 0.01
F26 9.206 22.79 1.14 0.672 0.07 0.01
F27 9.206 22.65 1.13 4.257 0.43 0.04
F28 6.349 15.94 0.80 2.469 0.25 0.02
F29 4.444 11.13 0.56 0.303 0.03 0.00
F210 6.984 17.25 0.86 0.706 0.07 0.01
F31 7.936 19.92 1.00 1.774 0.18 0.01
F32 6.031 15.14 0.76 1.528 0.15 0.01
F33 7.619 18.86 0.94 2.368 0.24 0.02
F34 6.031 14.96 0.75 1.359 0.14 0.01
F35 7.619 18.67 0.93 1.692 0.17 0.01
F36 11.110 27.34 1.37 1.024 0.10 0.01
F37 7.301 18.22 0.91 1.615 0.16 0.01
F38 5.714 13.84 0.69 0.388 0.04 0.00
F39 5.714 14.12 0.71 0.778 0.08 0.01
F310 6.666 16.60 0.83 0.669 0.07 0.01

26. 25
Appendix Table 6 - Raw data for plant available Nitrogen
Sample Nitrogen
(ppm)
A-1 5
A-2 5
A-3 5
A-4 7
A-5 LOW
A-6 LOW
A-7 LOW
A-8 LOW
A-9 LOW
A-10 5
F1-1 6
F1-2 10
F1-3 5
F1-4 5
F1-5 5
F1-6 6
F1-7 LOW
F1-8 7
F1-9 5
F1-10 5
F2-1 7
F2-2 6
F2-3 7
F2-4 6
F2-5 5
F2-6 LOW
F2-7 6
F2-8 7
F2-9 8
F2-10 6
F3-1 LOW
F3-2 5
F3-3 LOW
F3-4 LOW
F3-5 LOW
F3-6 LOW
F3-7 LOW
F3-8 LOW
F3-9 5
F3-10 LOW

27. 26
Appendix Table 7 - Mean data from locations close to those tested via Lucy Ellis
Mean Values Cloven-Le-Dale Woodvale
Soil pH 3.52 3.67
% LOI 3.44 2.39
Na (meq 100g-1) 0.06 0.06
K (meq 100g-1) 0.06 0.07
Ca (meq 100g-1) 0.30 0.01
Mg (meq 100g-1) 0.05 0.04
N (ppm) 3.00 5.30
P (ppm) 1.55 1.09

28. 27
Appendix Table 8 - Species data from locations close to those tested via Lucy Ellis
No. Species No. Calluna seedlings
Woodvale 1 5 0
2 8 17
3 2 0
4 4 0
5 3 0
Cloven le Dale 1 5 0
2 6 5
3 3 0
4 4 11
5 1 0
Freshfields 1 1 3 2
2 5 0
3 1 0
4 5 0
5 3 0
Freshfields 2 1 1 0
2 1 0
3 1 0
4 6 15
5 0 0
Freshfields 3 1 0 0
2 2 0
3 4 0
4 3 0
5 8 0
Ainsdale 1 4 0
2 1 0
3 4 0
4 3 0
5 3 0
Control 1 3 0
2 3 0
3 3 0
4 3 0
5 3 0