Sunday, 8 October 2017

Building resilience into nature reserve design and management



 
Too often on visits to nature reserves there is the assumption that the site is performing well, yet there is a nagging concern that somehow it just doesn't look right and perhaps could be delivering more.  There is a feeling of stability: the site looks 'tired'.  Maybe it's just a bad day out for an old and increasingly grumpy ecologist, but is it just plain grumpiness or perhaps something else of deeper concern that is affecting our nature reserves?
 
 
Wetland nature reserves that have been restored or created often have this air of stability or ‘tiredness’.  A while ago, I was at a conference where conservation academics were arguing that the attempts of conservation ecologists to recreate wetland habitat were a very poor second to maintaining existing habitat.  There can be little disagreement with this, but their key point was that research showed that even the best attempts to recreate habitat will only manage to recover around 70% of biological reference conditions (of plants and invertebrates) and even then, only after many decades. They argued that most recreated wetlands were far too simple compared with the complexity of natural habitat.  They may well have a point and although this shouldn’t stop us creating new sites, it should certainly make us consider just how effective our habitat designs and management systems are.
 
If you just flood the corner of a field, you can attract waterbirds. Relatively simple wetland designs, for example recreating wet grasslands from farmland, can have immediate success.  High numbers of target species such as breeding waders can be achieved in the short term. The basic factors are seemingly few: water regime and sward structure and we know that predation has a major influence. Allegedly a reserves manager once stated “even a monkey could manage wet grassland”.  Well it must have been a very clever monkey as this couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact is that experience shows us that many sites peak and then decline over a period of time.  Why does this happen?
 
There are probably a number of issues at play.  The first is all about natural ecological processes and cycles. We know that wetlands can be highly productive in the early years: large amounts of food can be available and early colonising species can go through a rapid growth phase.   As declines of some key species set in, habitat quality is often looked at first.   The site manager may claim; “but it's just the same as it's always been”.   In fact changes are likely to be occurring every year as the habitat moves from this period of rapid growth to a more stable phase.  In natural wet grasslands and marshes, although the ongoing processes of natural succession may be somewhat balanced by grazing animals, changes are continually happening as the habitat is shaped by the effects of processes such as wetting and drying.   The subtle mosaics of water, mud and vegetation will continue to alter.  In some areas, early successional species decline, grasses thicken, coarser rushes and sedges move in.  In others dynamic processes set the clock back.  These subtle changes go on year after year, shifting the balance of suitability from one species to another. Other changes are also taking place.  Nutrients become locked up in the muds and vegetation.  Successional changes take place in the invertebrate populations, shifting from simple abundance of a few, to a diversity of many.
 
The conservation management of nature reserves tends to seek to achieve similar ‘ideal’ conditions for target or priority species year after year, often with little or no recognition of these wider processes. Site designations and agri-environment schemes may also promote the stability of these ‘ideal’ conditions.  In wetlands, this often results in a controlled consistency in wetting, drying, grazing regimes and cutting that ignores natural processes and fails to acknowledge how the ecosystem as a whole works.  As these opposing actions clash, the result can be a state of arrested and impoverished habitat development lacking the full diversity created by dynamic processes and ecological cycles.  In addition, the drive to increase management efficiency and reduce costs once sites are ‘favourable’ or ‘steady-state’ fails to acknowledge the secondary effects and feedbacks that can act to change the system, and ultimately lead to declines.
 
A second issue is the aforementioned point about habitat restoration design. The habitat designs for many wetlands are too simple, for example, wet grassland are often based extensively on networks of flooded ‘foot-drains’ in each field.  These are basically linear, straight, uniform shallow ditch systems within the grassland. These designs seem to get repeated irrespective of soil type or end function (nature reserve or farmland in an agri-environment scheme).  As we re-wet sites, we know the vegetation will change and become more flood tolerant, with rush, sedge or club-rush increasing and thicker grass swards covering previously bare ground.  The lack of complexity, and then increasing stability, in such created wetlands reduces the options for species.  We create simple food chains with our target species in the middle.  The simple foot-drain design and predictably stable management regime lacks any resilience against the range of changing factors that will apply from year to year. The problem may be that the prized Lowland Wet Grasslands that these creations aim to reproduce are themselves just an artifact of a natural wetland for the purpose of agriculture.  Perhaps LWG per se should not be a target habitat on nature reserves but remain a poor, but realistic target for agri-environment schemes in a farmland context.  Our wetland nature reserve management should be much more imaginative.
 
Flooding an area that has a varied, complex, fine-scale topography and allowing it to dry out slowly should provide more opportunities for wetland species than a simple system comprising dry land interspersed with flooded foot-drains.  The former should deliver wider benefit to nature conservation and probably exhibit increased resilience over the latter.
 
A related issue is that with the widespread decline in wet grassland waders, much research is undertaken, and often on these restored or recreated wetlands.   The research may make claims about the factors and features that affect our waders.  However, simple science doesn’t always see the wider ecological picture.  The result may have been correct for that moment in time on that site but completely wrong the year after and elsewhere.  The conclusion that waders like foot-drains is a good example. This may merely be a reflection of the conditions the species chose from those available at that time, not the ideal conditions the species would choose.
 
Predation is another serious issue.  Predators will exist in most circumstances and are known to be beneficial overall to the ecosystem.  However, where large numbers of conservation-priority birds are attracted to breed on small nature reserves set within a degraded wider countryside, they can act as a honey-pot for a range of both mammalian and avian predators.  It is of course possible to continually remove predators such as Foxes but this is arguably unsustainable in the long-term and abhorrent to many conservationists.  A standard policy should be to look for non-lethal methods of managing predation if we can, and this may begin with habitat design.
 
As a result of these inter-related issues, a predictable pattern of growth and decline is apparent on a number of wetland reserves for breeding waders that are, for example, a mix of restored old grassland and newly created wetland on ex-arable land.  After increasing to a peak some years after creation, wader numbers are frequently seen to drop steadily, losing a significant proportion of the peak population.
 
Management for Lapwings, frequently a target species on wet grasslands, is a good example of this. As the Lapwing, which favours short swards and bare ground, struggles to cope with successional habitat changes it also faces a revolving door of predator-prey relationships. Most predators will have preferred prey, shifting to alternates when it becomes scarce.  Foxes eat voles but their diet is affected by cycles in the vole population.  When voles are scarce they may seek out more bird food, such as Lapwing eggs. When voles are abundant, Foxes may eat less Lapwing eggs. However, other predators; mustellids or crows or raptors, may be following different cycles and may switch on to wader chicks in those years.  Predators also learn where the food resources are at different times of the year.  A reliable hot-spot of wader eggs will be noted in the predator memory.  In a complex natural system, Lapwings will move around in response to habitat, food and predation.  We don’t give them this option at many of our reserves and they suffer for it.
 
A more dynamic and resilient management approach typical of a natural wetland and with the understanding of ecological cycles is required.  We need to improve overall ecosystem integrity rather than focusing on the status of a single or a few species.  This should involve measures that allow or simulate natural processes of distructive/creative change such as flood or drought: varying water regimes, varying grazing patterns, turning areas on and off, targeted rejuvenation through various disturbance measures. One study showed that managers can almost double the area of suitable habitat by more dynamically managing water levels and managing invasive vegetation.  We should aim to create and manage habitats that are more resilient and sustainable in the face of climate change than engineered channels and narrow focussed targets.
 
So how do we improve our wetland creation and management?  More to follow.....




Wednesday, 5 April 2017

Preparing for another spring



Spring is an exciting but critical time of year on nature reserves, a test of whether various management tweaks put in place over the winter period have been successful.  There is a sense of anticipation as the season advances and, for the reserves ecologist, a flurry of site visits to check progress on the ground.

Firstly and perhaps most excitingly, how will the various rare and colonising species fare in the coming season?  Plans have been put in place to facilitate success.  The Great White Egret breeding season is already underway and under a detailed monitoring regime. Additional measures have also been put in place to help Black-winged Stilts and the early arrivals are being tracked so that protective measures can be put in place when they settle.  It is probably still a while yet until the Little Bitterns return, but we amuse ourselves by trying to predict where they will set up territories this year.

Food remains one of the key factors influencing the success of many bird species.  At Ham Wall in the Avalon Marshes we have undertaken electro-fishing surveys in some of the key areas of the reserve to try and understand the distribution of Bitterns, Little Bitterns and egrets in the coming season.  The results were interesting.  Large amounts of fish in some areas, very few in others.  One of the findings at Ham Wall is the presence of the non-native Sunbleak, also known as the Motherless Minnow (see video below). This fish species from continental Europe was patchily abundant and no doubt provides easy pickings for fish-eating birds.  It is assumed that its arrival and spread in the UK is related to the stocking of fish for angling.  The first count of booming Bitterns in the Avalon Marshes has produced a total of 46 with the 20 on Ham Wall showing some interesting comparison with the fishing results.

The steady march of natural succession is a key issue on many sites.  Looking at the scrub development on Warton Crag in Lancashire it is clear that the habitat has changed markedly over the last few decades. The crag is noted for its populations of butterflies, notably the High Brown Fritillary, a species that does not tolerate shading of its breeding habitat. Following the re-start of coppice management in the early 1990’s, High-brown Fritillary numbers substantially increased. Having been fairly stable up to 2010 there has been a clear decline in recent years but with the Warton Crag trend appearing to mirror the regional trend.  However, weather plays a key role in the butterfly’s fortunes and the latest decline is thought to be related to several mild, wet winters which contribute to increased parasitism and mortality of larvae.   Extensive opening up of the site by removal of scrub to create more rides and open features with the aim of to create microclimates and better connectivity is being undertaken (photos above). This determined effort to roll back the scrub encroachment will hopefully bring some results this year.

Perhaps some of the greatest challenges come with ground nesting birds, and not least, waders on wet grasslands. A manager once allegedly said “even a monkey can manage wet grassland” a statement that couldn’t be further from the truth. Although the factors influencing success are largely straightforward: principally vegetation structure, water regime and predation, the influences on these factors and the relationship between them can be highly complex.  I have seen too many sites with declining wader populations where the site managers proclaim little or nothing has changed. But invariably it has.  At this time of year, sward conditions and water levels need to be near perfect.  However, this year has been difficult, with a dry, warm winter influencing both vegetation and available water. Many sites will need to conserve every drop of water this year.  Predation is perhaps the toughest issue, bringing with it some difficult decisions.  Predator management is a hot topic and we have delivered a couple of workshops to bring sites up to speed with the latest thinking. Increased monitoring has helped clarify the issues.  But the key question remains; how do we maximize the productivity of species of conservation priority whilst managing the impact of predators primarily through non-lethal means. Another spring will help us move towards the solution.

video
 

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

The Golden Wellies 2016




As another year comes to an end, the results of the RSPB’s internal competition to find the best passage wader site, The Golden Wellies, have just been announced.  The rules are simple: monthly counts of waders are recorded; they have to be ‘feet down’ (no fly-overs) on a managed fresh/brackish scrape or flood (not tidal). The idea behind the competition is also simple: you may not be interested in rare waders on your site but they tend to indicate a well-managed site.  A well-managed site will attract many common breeding and passage birds, rare birds will also tend to arrive at such sites. The better the feeding conditions, the more likely they are to stay. Extra elements to the competition test good wetland management throughout the year and also the accessibility of good birds to weekend birders by having a ‘rare bird Saturday bonus’. 

The Premier League champions are, yet again, Frampton Marsh. Frampton recorded 34 species, narrowly pipping Titchwell (33) who were top of the League for most of the year. The highlights of Frampton’s year included Long-billed Dowitcher, Black-winged Stilt, Broad-billed, White-rumped and Pectoral Sandpipers, as well as peak counts of 258 Curlew Sandpipers and 50 Little Stints.  Titchwell could only muster a feeble Great Knot, Pacific Golden Plover and a couple of Pec Sands.  Frampton had an average monthly peak of 4,856 waders of 25.1 species, compared to Titchwell’s slightly higher Knot-fuelled monthly average of 5,267 waders of 23.4 species.  Minsmere’s much lower monthly average of 526 waders nether-the-less still maintained a monthly diversity of 24.0 species. If only they could record a Temminck’s Stint!  Snettisham records the most waders monthly – an average peak of 39,300 birds, but only averaging 15.3 species a month.

The Golden Wellie also includes a breeding wader productivity award – won this year by Burton Mere Wetlands on the Dee Estuary.  Middleton Lakes (27 species), the Aire Valley (26) and the Ouse Washes (26 species) all again demonstrate that well managed inland sites can compete with the coast in terms of wader diversity if not numbers.  A new entry this year, Wallasea, gained immediate promotion from League 1 with a notable 23 species – what will it get when the site is completed?  In the north and west, Loch of Strathbeg, Conwy and Belfast Lough all perform well given they struggle to record the southern certainties of Avocet and LRP.

In all, 43 species of wader were recorded during the year, with a peak monthly count of 111,719 birds being recorded across RSPB ‘wader scrapes’ in September.  Monthly peak counts included 399 Whimbrel in April, 22 Black-winged Stilts in May, 12 Red-necked Phalaropes in June, 228 Green Sandpipers in July, 16,800 Black-tailed Godwits, 334 Ruff, 411 Curlew Sandpipers and 123 Little Stints in August, and 3,151 Avocets and 40 Jack Snipe in September.  

Although the Golden Wellie has 48 competing sites across three leagues, the top performing 15 sites in 2016 were as follows:
                                             
      Site                      Wader spp     Final score incl. bonuses
1.   Frampton Marsh       34                          72
2.   Titchwell                    33                          62
3.   Minsmere                   31                          53  
4.   Cliffe Pools                 28                          46
5.   Snettisham                 28                          44 
6.   Saltholme                   26                          42 
7.   South Essex                27                          41                                    
8.   Dungeness                  29                          38                                                  
9.   Arne                            26                          37         
10.  Exe                             27                           36
11.  Ouse Washes             26                           36             
12.  Loch of Strath            24                          34     
13.  Middleton Lakes        27                          33   
14.  Old Hall Marshes       28                          32
15.  Lodmoor/Radipole     26                          32


                         

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Lakenheath Fen - Crane powerhouse



The fact that Lakenheath Fen RSPB reserve was a carrot field some 20 or so years ago is often repeated.  The detail that has gone into the design of the site and the management for key species is less often appreciated.  This is no airy-fairy, lets see how it develops type of reserve, beloved of some sections of the conservation community.  This is a targeted and planned development that now delivers for Bitterns, Cranes, Bearded Tits, Marsh Harriers, Water Voles, Otters and a range of specialised wetland and Breck plants and invertebrates.

This week, I attended the ecological review for the year and undertook the annual audit.  There were a minimum of 5 booming Bitterns, with at least 3 successful nests. We reviewed the results of the fish survey throughout the reserve and discussed the habitat management. The detailed management undertaken for Bitterns that has led to a remarkable recovery in the UK is well known, but perhaps the work for Cranes less so.  Cranes have also had a good year at Lakenheath Fen with three chicks fledged from the 2 nesting pairs.  But this is no chance event, rather the result of considerable effort by site staff.

The case of Cranes is an interesting one.  Recently released figures show a total of 48 pairs in the UK this year:  a combination of 27 pairs of (mainly) wild birds in 4 population centres and 21 pairs of the ongoing re-introduction scheme in Somerset. At least 16 young were reared this year. The population in the Fens is doing well, contributing 7 of these fledged youngsters, whilst the Broads contributed 4 and Somerset just one.

There have been several re-introduction schemes of various species of cranes around the world.  None have been totally successful.  They have suffered from various problems such as imprinting on humans, lack of migratory instinct, poor productivity and the cranes generally failing to think and act like wild cranes, particularly when it comes to predators! The well publicised nesting attempts of some of the released birds where they clearly fail to recognize good nesting habitat or exhibit typical crane behaviour is a good example.  Lets hope these issues can be resolved.

So how has Lakenheath become the UK crane powerhouse? The birds first appeared in 2007.  DNA analysis of feathers suggested a Finnish/Russian origin.  Over 10 years, 23 clutches of eggs have been laid, with 11 chicks fledging: an average of 0.55 young per pair.  The fledging rate was poor at first but is increasing in recent years; the last 5 years average 0.8 and a remarkable 1.5 for the last 2 years.  Detailed study of the Cranes by site staff since they first appeared at Lakenheath, notably by Norman Sills, has led to a good understanding of their requirements.   Habitat management seeks to create ideal conditions for both nesting and chick rearing.  However, it is predation, mainly by Foxes that poses the major threat to the youngsters.  Habitat manipulation can help with this but ultimately some control of Foxes is required.  To ensure success, the latest technology of trail cameras and thermal imagers is used in conjunction with a skilled marksman.


The reedbed management aims to create structural diversity for the benefit of the key species.  Cutting and grazing are the key management tools and also aim to enhance viewing opportunities for visitors.  No airy-fairy stuff this – rather it is determined and targeted conservation effort that brings results.

Photo below - Dartmoor ponies eating reed and typha rhizomes