A Strategy for Recording and Monitoring on SWT Reserves

Paul Gallagher

2008

Contents

Page
1. / Introduction / 2
2. / Different kinds of records / 2
2.2 What to do with this data / 3
2.3 Prioritisation / 4
2.4 Initial considerations / 4
Table 1 – Summary of monitoring levels / 7
3. / Methods / 8
3.1 Surveying or monitoring / 8
3.2 How detailed and how often / 8
3.3 Random, stratified random, or systematic sampling? / 8
3.4 Which method is most suitable? / 8
4. / Plants / 9
4.1 Counting / 9
4.2 Quadrats / 9
4.3 Transects / 10
4.4.Photography / 10
4.5 Repeat survey / 10
5. / Epiphytes and fungi / 11
6. / Butterflies and moths / 11
6.1 Butterflies / 11
6.2 Moths / 12
6.2.1.When / 12
6.2.2. How / 12
6.2.3 Flowers and fruit / 12
6.2.4 Sugaring / 12
6.2.5 Wine ropes / 13
6.2.6 Light traps / 13
6.2.7 Other methods / 13
6.2.8 Moth welfare / 13
7. / Other invertebrates / 13
8. / Freshwater fish / 14
9. / Reptiles and amphibians / 14
10. / Birds / 14
11. / Bats / 15
12. / Terrestrial mammals / 15
13. / Terrestrial habitats / 15
13.1 The NVC method / 16
13.2 How to cheat at NVC / 17
Table 2 – Summary of survey methods most applicable to priority
species on SWT reserves / 19
Appendix 1 – Standard recording format for species on SWT reserves / 20

1. Introduction

Ever since the Scottish Wildlife Trust first began to manage wildlife reserves in 1964, some form of recording and monitoring has taken place. Over that period methods have evolved and become more standardised. Yet even today the motivation remains as varied as ever, as do the approaches taken. In one sense there is nothing inherently wrong with this as people involved with a particular reserve will have their own reasons for recording what they see. This can range from casual observations for the sheer pleasure of it to carefully repeated surveys to monitor the condition of particular habitats or species. However, unless something is done with the information it can either be lost or simply not acted upon.

Following the entering of records into SWT’s Recorder Database and the digitisation of all National Vegetation Classification (NVC) habitat data for SWT reserves, it became clear that processing of records is both time consuming and costly. It also became clear that not all records are of equal value when it comes to informing management decisions for reserves. As a result, with only finite resources available for data processing, it was decided that a review of and the production of a strategy for recording and monitoring on SWT reserves was necessary so that in future only useful information is processed.

2. Different kinds of records

I remember some years ago being handed a very impressive species list for one particular SWT reserve. It had been produced by a reputable BSBI recorder and so was trustworthy. Yet it didn’t help me nearly as much as it might have. The list was of higher and lower plants and as I had been asked to undertake an NVC survey of the site, this might have saved me some considerable time rooting around in the vegetation. The problem was that the list was for the entire site, with no indication of where the plants had been found nor any simple way of telling which habitat they had occurred in. Nor was there any indication of abundance. If only the volunteers from the local botany group had roughly divided the site up into different habitats on a simple map (something that with their knowledge would have been very easy) and then given some rough estimate of relevant abundance I could have almost carried out the NVC from my office. The point is that there are a lot of very keen and capable people out there doing all kinds of recording on SWT reserves. Yet much of it is of only limited value. However, for only a little more effort, and with a few simple guidelines, this could all change. Allow me to explain further.

Going for an occasional stroll over a reserve and recording species of interest as you go is in itself a worthwhile pastime. Taking note of the birds that fly by, the roe deer that jumps the fence and then quickly disappears, or the butterfly that you don’t remember ever seeing there before all go to enhance the experience of being there. There’s nothing wrong with this. I will call these level three observations.

The person who has noted that a particular wildlife reserve seems to support a few species that don’t appear to be very common in the area and takes note of these on and off most years is, possibly without seriously thinking about it, actually undertaking a basic form of monitoring. That these species might be fairly common in a neighbouring district doesn’t necessarily matter as it is these species in this place that are of value and interest to the locals. I will call these level two observations.

A small group of SWT members, supported by their local Reserves Manager, visit a reserve annually and carefully record the abundance of a small number of species. These have been identified from the UK Species Action Plan (UK SAP) list, the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) list, or the SNH Five-year Species Action Framework as species under threat and requiring particular attention. The reserve is managed with their presence in mind, but unless these species are carefully monitored in a simple, repeatable way then no one will know whether or not the management is being effective. I will call these level one observations.

Level three observations are important because they enhance the experience of a visit to a wildlife reserve. The person who simply takes their dog there to run around no doubt enjoys the fresh air and exercise; but they probably don’t see very much as their pet will have scared away all the really interesting animals. The person who goes to appreciate the place for what it is, a haven for wildlife, will gain considerably more. Yet the person who takes the time to learn about that wildlife, naming species and knowing how they fit into the larger picture is actually engaging with the place on a very intimate level. Thus observing and recording in this way is a very valuable pastime. In addition, it can also provide a rudimentary but helpful baseline in the absence of any more precise data as well as more up to date information where no systematic survey has been undertaken for some time.

The level two observations are important because they provide a set of data over time for species that locals see as particularly important in their area. These records will show how those populations are faring over time and may act as an early-warning system should something begin to adversely affect them. Yet the value of these observations may be increased dramatically if the same method is used each time; and people may be encouraged to continue this over many years if that method is sufficiently simple.

The level one observations are essential if a reserve is to fulfil its purpose as a haven for wildlife and in particular species that require protection. Without this there will be no way of knowing whether or not management is being effective in this, nor whether management aimed at protecting one species is actually conflicting with another of equal or greater importance. It is here that casual volunteer effort could be channelled and adapted into something much more useful. It is also here that SWT resources will be required and need to be channelled effectively.

2.2 What to do with this data

Casual observations (level 3) are of only limited value in saying something about a reserve. (That budgerigar that just flew by probably escaped from a nearby house and certainly isn’t going to build a nest at Falls of Clyde; but what about that peregrine?) They are too vague to be of any real help. Yet there is a place for at least some of them; and that’s on the notice board of the information centre, or maybe as an article in the Members Centre newsletter as they make things that bit more interesting. In addition, in the absence of any other information, these casual observations may provide a rudimentary baseline that can later be built upon. In this case it will be for the SWT Reserve Manager to decide what to do with the data in the first instance.

More systematic observations (level 2) may be of use in a local context. (If a reserve is renowned for its bluebells or yellow flag then it would be nice to ensure that they stick around.) Whether or not these records are carefully entered into a database will depend upon how careful and systematic the recording has been, and whether or not the recorders are deemed reliable. (No that isn’t Japanese maple regenerating; some kid has been growing cannabis here!) If a species is considered of sufficient local importance, and if the records are good, with appropriate details of place and time etc., then they should be considered for entering into the SWT Recorder database. Of course in order to determine whether or not this is the case, records need to be set in a broader context. (Simply because an SWT reserve supports lots of bluebells, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the best bluebell wood in Scotland doesn’t exist on some private land just a few miles down the road.) For this some additional research may be needed before a decision can be made. Local Record Centres might be the best place for some data such as this. In other cases other organisations such as Butterfly Conservation might usefully be contacted and kept informed. In this situation it will be up to the SWT Reserve Manager to decide how valuable the information is likely to be, particularly in terms of reliability. The next step would be to consult with SWT’s Data Manager. As a rule, if data is considered to be of interest it will be entered into SWT’s Recorder database and from there passed on to the NBN and other interested parties. It is here also that a Reserve Manager might be able to more carefully target volunteer efforts towards level 1 observations.

The level 1 observations must of course be carefully saved in the SWT Recorder database so that the information is both easily accessible to those who need to use it to inform management decisions, as well as being easier to share with Local Record Centres if they exist in the area. Entry of these into the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) website should also be considered so that the general public can have access to them, and certainly, if appropriate, other organisations such as RSPB and Butterfly Conservation should be kept informed.

The process of saving data and in particular entering it into the SWT Recorder database can be made considerably easier if it is forwarded in a suitable format. (See appendix 1 for details.)

2.3 Prioritisation

Prioritisation of actions on SWT reserves is informed by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) list of Priority Species. Of the 1149 UK BAP Priority Species now listed for the UK,168 (15%) can be found on SWT reserves, and there are Priority Species present on 101 SWT reserves. (This is excluding 12 purely marine species that were merely observed from SWT reserves.) As a true record of species occurring on SWT reserves, this is almost certainly incomplete as surveyor efforts tend to focus on certain groups over others. However, at present this must be taken as a useful basis for management planning.

With such a large number of species it becomes necessary to break this down to some extent. As a result, as well as removing marine species, birds, and butterflies and moths were separated out so that they can be viewed in isolation. The list was then shortened further by removing species over which SWT could have little control beyond maintaining the habitat in a generally good condition[1].The report, Biodiversity on SWT Reserves 2008 provides further details of this[2]. This report also prioritises actions for individual species and habitats and should be read in conjunction with this document.

It is important that when it comes to essential (level 1) monitoring that SWT managesits budget to fit what is needed rather allowing it to constrain efforts. When it comes to level 2 monitoring, decisions will have to be made according to availability of resources and whether or not it is appropriate to attempt to raise funds for this. Even where volunteers are available and capable, the capacity within SWT to supervise recording, collate the data, and enter it into the Recorder database will remain a potential constraint.

2.4 Initial considerations

Every wildlife reserve requires a baseline of data from which to make management decisions. Indeed the original decision to acquire the reserve must have been based on some form of information. The first task of recording must therefore be to produce a baseline dataset from existing records and from there decide what additional recording if any is required. As the type and quality of data varies widely, this may be different for every reserve. However, the aim should be to standardise this to some extent, and at least raise the data to a minimum level. This would include:

  • An NVC map with accompanying species lists of higher and lower plants for the reserve – now available and digitised for all SWTreserves2.
  • A list of all species of importance on the reserve (plant or animal) with an indication of precisely where and when they have been found and how they relate to UK and Scottish lists.
  • A list of all invasive non-native species on the reserve with an indication of where and when they have been found and to what extent they pose a threat to other species and habitats.
  • Other data of relevance such as occasional sightings of species of particular interest, hydrology, and soil pH data.
  • A dataset of management actions that might impact on species or habitats one way or another; for example dates of grazing, type and number of livestock, and what areas were grazed.

Much of the work mentioned above has already been done2 but further details may be required in some cases.

Methods for monitoring will be considered in greater detail later. A range of standard methods already exist for most needs, and these can be used and if necessary slightly adapted with relative ease. However, there are a number of basic principles worth mentioning, not least as these relate directly to use of resources.

  • KISS – Keep it as short and simple as possible without compromising the objectives. A complex monitoring scheme that looks at absolutely everything might seem ideal in theory, but in practice the plethora of information might mask the important details, resources may be squandered (or at some future date deemed unavailable for such an expensive project), and if it is too complicated it may be beyond the capabilities of volunteers who might otherwise be of great help. Complicated monitoring schemes run the risk of errors, and sooner or later they are always discontinued for one reason or another. The old Chinese adage of not shooting a mouse with a cannon is worth keeping in mind here. Keep it simple or all you may end up with is a meaningless mess.
  • Whatever you do, people will need to know what you did, when you did it, and of course where you did it. They may also need to know who you are in order to check how reliable the record is likely to be. So as well as the records themselves, grid references, dates and names of surveyors are a minimum requirement. If this is not made clear from the start then time will be wasted trying to gather such information at a later date. So carefully considered, easy to follow instructions are essential.
  • Recording as a single, one-off exercise is usually of limited use no matter how detailed unless at some point in the future it can be repeated for comparison. This means that recording needs to be careful, systematic and thus repeatable. This is called monitoring and that is why this document usually talks about monitoring rather than simply recording. By thinking about monitoring rather than recording, one is also forced to think about why this is being done in the first place.
  • There is a point at which a species becomes so abundant that you cannot count every individual. Beyond this point you need to be able to sample in such a way that the results reflect the changing reality of the situation. This is probably the only really complicated thing about monitoring, and decisions made about this determine whether or not something takes an hour or a week. Quadrats (sampling frames) and transects (lines along which observations are made) are the norm for plants and some animals. How many, and whether or not to keep them in the same place all the time or distribute them randomly each time will determine how long this takes. The simple presence or absence of a species on a site is insufficient for monitoring (though sometimes within a series of quadrats this can be adequate). The simple questions to ask are, will this information be sufficient to allow me to judge whether or not things are changing and if so how, and will I or even someone unfamiliar with the project be able to repeat this year after year.
  • When it comes to habitats, quadrats are not always necessary. Instead, indicator species (species that typically prefer that habitat over others) can be used. For example, a calcareous (lime-rich) heath should of course have lime-loving plant species present. Once a baseline survey of this site (normally NVC) is completed, those present there will be known and the type of heath (in NVC terms) can be determined from this. From then on, unless things change dramatically, the presence of a small number of species can be used to determine the health of the whole. While a careful repeat of the baseline survey may be required where change is suspected, a search for a smaller number of indicator species with a rough estimate of relative abundance (dominant, abundant, frequent, occasional, or scarce for example) may be perfectly adequate.
  • If records are presented in an excel spreadsheet in the manner described above then it will be a simple matter to enter these into the recorder database. Thus, access to Recorder and an ability to use this software is not essential as far as recording is concerned. Only when access to existing records is required will training in Recorder be needed. So even volunteers with little training should be able to produce records in such a way that they can be easily processed.
  • Change is a natural thing, but is not always what we want. In some cases nature can be allowed to take its course (when a woodland is being encouraged to regenerate for example), but in others, intervention is needed (for example when trees are trying to colonise an important calcareous heath). Intervention is expensive, but in many cases without it the value and interest of a site may be lost. Monitoring is what helps us to decide just how little we can get away with doing and still maintain an important site in good condition. In this sense, monitoring can be very cost-effective providing it is carefully targeted and kept as simple as possible.

1