Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.anglia.ac.uk
Steering Group members: Alan Bowley, Natural England Chris Gerrard, Wildlife Trust Paul Jose, Huntingdonshire District Council Owen Mountford, NERC-CEH, Wallingford Lorna Parker, Wildlife Trust Lesley Saint, Environment Agency Stuart Warrington, National Trust
November 2010
Contents
Section 1: Introduction to landscape-scale projects Section 2: Why monitor? Section 3: What should be monitored? Section 4: Monitoring physical processes 4.1 4.2 Understanding hydrology Monitoring activities 4.2.1 Monitoring rainfall 4.2.2 Monitoring water levels 4.2.3 Monitoring soil moisture 4.2.4 Monitoring soil nutrients 4.2.5 Monitoring soil function Section 5: Monitoring habitat mosaics 5.1 Case study: Monitoring landscape-scale habitat mosaics at the Wicken Fen Vision 5.1.1 Aerial photography 5.1.2 Interpretation of FCIR images 5.1.3 Characterising the mosaic Section 6: What species should we monitor? 6.1 Monitoring terrestrial vegetation communities 6.1.1 Understanding wetland vegetation 6.1.2 Choosing monitoring locations 6.1.3 Monitoring techniques 6.2 6.3 Monitoring aquatic habitats Monitoring species as indicators of landscape change 6.3.1 Species linked to environmental quality 6.3.2 Flagship species 6.3.3 Landscape species/assemblages 6.3.4 Species indicative of landscape connectivity 7 9 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 9.2 Section 7: Can we monitor ecosystem services? 7.1 7.2 7.3 What are ecosystem services? Direct measurements of ecosystem services Indirect measurements of ecosystem services 25 25 26 26 27 27 29 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 35 37 39 39 39 40 42 Section 8: Monitoring local support and concerns 8.1 8.2 Engaging with local people Measuring changing attitudes to landscape-scale projects
Section 9: Who should undertake monitoring and how often? 9.1 Deciding who should monitor 9.1.1 Professionals/specialists 9.1.2 Professionals and volunteers 9.1.3 Volunteers 9.1.4 School groups/student projects Frequency and timing of monitoring
Section 10: Funding monitoring Section 11: Project evaluation Section 12: Beyond the project 12.1 Connecting with other landscape-scale projects 12.2 Dissemination of monitoring data References linked to superscript numbers in each section Acknowledgements
Konik ponies at the Wicken Vision project are part of of an extensive, free-roaming grazing system
Restoration of wetland habitats at Adventurers Fen (part of Wicken Fen) in Cambridgeshire has used prescriptive restoration techniques to dig a mere and create aquatic habitats. It has also used the natural processes of vegetation regeneration from seedbanks and extensive grazing by free-roaming herd animals. This example combines both the first and second type of restoration approaches described in this section.
The first two of these are very useful for project managers who need to make decisions about aspects of habitat management and for the many stakeholders who will want to know what is happening at the site and what impacts restoration might have on them. The third is particularly useful in advocacy and for promoting the range of benefits that ecological restoration can bring to a wide range of people.
10
11
Understanding how a wetland functions requires information about elements of the water budget and about the hydroperiod. However, not all hydrological factors are easy to measure. Often a combination of direct measurement of some inputs and outputs (eg rainfall or stream flows) can be combined with measurements of aspects of the wetlands hydroperiod to give a good picture of hydrological activity. The hydrological factors that are relatively straightforward to measure can thus be classified into two types of measurement activity: 1. Direct measurement of inputs and/or outputs Rainfall Water levels in water supply/removal channels 2. Measurement of wetland hydroperiod Depth and extent of water in the wetland during wet months Depth of the water table below the ground during dry months Soil moisture remaining in the soil above the water table when the water table is below the surface. Data gathered on wetland hydroperiods make a significant contribution to understanding why particular plants and animals occur
within a wetland landscape. Although some hydrological inputs cannot be altered (like rainfall) knowing that a wetland has, for example, received lower than average rainfall in a particular winter, can trigger decisions about managing other water inputs during the following spring and summer. Such measurements can make very practical contributions to a land managers hydrological toolkit.
12
Figure 3: More water is lost from evapotranspiration than gained from rainfall between March and September in this example, typical of the late 1990s, from Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire1.
Figure 4. This graph shows a fluctuating water table at the centre of a restored fenland field from July 2007 to March 2009 on the Wicken Fen Vision project area. The water table shows a rapid response to individual rainfall events however the seasonal variation is closely linked to management activities which let water onto the site over the winter and allows it to drain off the site through the summer.
13
A dipwell installed at Wicken Fen measures both above ground flood levels and below ground water table levels.
Inset, an automated stilling well and manually read gauge board installed at Great Fen to measure ditch water levels.
14
ditch is providing water or removing water depending on the time of the year. Water levels have different impacts on different species, and need careful monitoring for seasonal fluctuations. For example, a gradual water level drawdown in spring/early summer is known to be valuable for some plants, wading birds and invertebrates, but a rapid rise in the water table at the wrong time of the year may be disastrous for all three. Choosing sites for hydrological monitoring
baseline values are known for N, P and K with subsequent tests being carried out at intervals of 510 years as values are unlikely to change rapidly. Soil analyses can be carried out by sending them to a laboratory for detailed analyses or by using inexpensive but less accurate field kits. Soil chemistry is very complex and it is important to understand the significance of different types of tests. In general, tests for Available P, Available N and Available K will tell a land manager most about the availability of these nutrients to plants.
In large-scale projects, it is difficult to decide where to locate hydrological equipment. Both hydrological considerations and practical considerations must be taken into account. Three rules of thumb can be used: 1. Choose sites that are typical of many parts of the project area but are also near to important water sources such as ditches or rivers. 2. Choose sites where additional information is also being collected (for example information about soils, or vegetation or water quality) because the more that is known about one site the better it will be understood. 3. Choose sites that are easy to get to so that the time taken to download data loggers or take manual measurements is minimized. Choosing equipment for hydrological monitoring Equipment should be robust and capable of operating in a wet environment! Many commercial sources of monitoring equipment are available but choose the simplest equipment that is capable of doing the job you want done. There are data loggers that can be put inside a dipwell and these will record the depth of water lying above them. In order to use these data you need to know the height of the ground surface next to each dipwell so a survey of ground elevation across the site is essential. Data loggers can be set to take measurements at any interval but measurements every 1 hour are commonly chosen. This gives 24 data points each day and allows a really good understanding of how the water table fluctuates in response to rainfall events or to changes in water inputs from other sources such as nearby ditches. Sometimes there will be a lag between the water input and the water level response and this tells the wetland manager how long it takes for water to move through the soil.
but P , on the other hand, gets taken up by the soil and bound to soil particles in such a way that much of it becomes unavailable to plants. It will tend to linger in the soil for several decades though it can be more rapidly released from organic soils than from mineral soils. The exact levels of both N and P once fertilization has ceased will largely be determined by the type of soil. As a rule of thumb, clay soils hold nutrients for much longer than soils that are more porous like silts and sands or than very organic soils like peat. This means that a reasonably detailed soil map2 can give a very good broad indication of the likely nutrient loading in the soils of a restoration area without the need to carry out nutrient analyses on a regular basis. However, it is a good idea to carry out soil analyses at the start of a project so that
15
5.1 Case study: Monitoring landscape-scale habitat mosaics at the Wicken Fen Vision
Remote sensing techniques offer effective ways of monitoring broad changes in the extent of vegetation and standing water across large expanses of wetland habitat. A protocol designed to capture and interpret landscape-scale data for this purpose has been developed for the Wicken Fen Vision in Cambridgeshire. This is an ambitious habitat creation project aiming to expand the boundary of the adjacent Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve by the purchase of c.50km of degraded farmland. Restoration of wetland habitats on the ex-arable fields is being carried out through natural regeneration and recovery of artificially lowered water tables. At the present time the area under restoration covers around 880 hectares (8.8km2). The following 3 steps were taken:
Key steps
1. Fly FCIR aerial images when wetland vegetation is at its peak (July or early August: book flights in advance). 2. Ensure receipt of digitised FCIR image within one week of flight. 3. Quality check digital images*. 4. Produce a single image from all available images*. 5. Instigate Image Segmentation Technique*. 6. Commence ground-truthing a maximum of two weeks following receipt of aerial images**. 7. Collate imformation and analyse chosen environmental indices**. 8. Repeat capture of FCIR data once every five years and repeat analysis.
* GIS specialist required. **ecological expertise required.
16
Figure 7: Generic spectra for basic surface types in invisible and Near Infra-Red (NIR) regions. FCIR aerial photography exploits the strong contrast between soil and different types of vegetation. Water has low reflectance in green, red and NIR and thus appears black in FCIR images.
Figure 8: An FCIR image of part of the Wicken Fen Vision project area, with field boundaries marked out in yellow, and segments marked out in black lines
17
Volunteers collecting water beetle samples at the Great Fen landscape-scale restoration project in Huntingdonshire
18
19
* DAFOR where a species is either Dominant (71100%), Abundant (3170%), Frequent (1130%), Occasional (410%), or Rare (03%)
which may have been confined to biodiversity hotpots may appear in new habitats and indicate a different type of connectivity. Other species may be monitored for what they tell us about environmental quality. We have chosen species indicative of four different aspects of landscape-scale projects in the Fens and these can broadly be categorised as: Species linked to environmental quality Flagship species Landscape species or species assemblages Species indicative of landscape connectivity
20
At the Great Fen Project and the Wicken Fen Vision in the fenlands of eastern England, landscape species have included marsh harriers, common cranes, otters and shorteared owls. At these projects the landscape effect can be observed in both the arrival of new landscape species and a rise in the population and expansion in the range of others. Recording such effects indicates that the project size has exceeded a critical barrier to the use of the area by these species. Landscape species can also include animals which are perhaps not immediately obvious candidates. Self-reliant grazing herds managed within an extensive grazing system fulfil the criteria for landscape species, and the monitoring of their movements and grazing habits can be very valuable when attempting to understand vegetation patterns at a landscape-scale. At the Wicken Fen Vision other animals like roe deer have also arrived and formed resident herds because of the large-scale of the project. Sometimes groups of associated species such as breeding wading birds or wetland invertebrate assemblages can also serve as excellent indicators of the landscape effect. Guidance is available for objectively choosing which landscape species to monitor 7, although the criteria have not been tested in a landscape-scale wetland.
Birds as indicators of connectivity Perhaps the most obvious animals associated with inter and intra-site connectivity are birds. Birds are known to perform a very important functional role in maintaining a connection between and within wetlands8. In particular, waterbird movement provides an excellent dispersal mechanism for aquatic plants and for invertebrate migration and in general terms contributes to an increase in local species richness. Having an understanding of which species are using the wetland (as stop-over sites on migration routes, for over-wintering or breeding) and where they are located, greatly adds to the value attached to a wetland from a regional, national and international perspective. This requires wintering and breeding bird surveys to be carried out and the results of these can influence the timing of management activities, for example, the raising or lowering of water tables where there is control over these. Invertebrates as indicators of connectivity When dealing with such an incredibly diverse phylum, there are bound to be species which are better adapted to dispersal than others. Dragonflies are obvious examples as they can fly long distances and will rapidly colonise new areas of suitable habitat. Conversely, many adult aquatic insects may not be able to fly overland between patches of suitable habitats, and within linear aquatic features barriers such as culverts or polluted water may limit dispersal by invertebrate larvae9. Mammals as indicators of connectivity Large scale wetlands have the potential to support a wide variety of mammals, many of which have experienced dramatic declines in populations across the UK in recent years. Some species, such as otters and water voles, need the connectivity of water features such as ditches with particular bank habitats and good water quality in order to spread. There are widely available methodologies for surveying otters, mink, water voles, water shrews and bank voles, as well as other small mammals and a range of bat species. In order to standardise the results of survey effort across the UK, there are also recognized guidelines for designing monitoring (surveillance) schemes for mammals though not all are appropriate or adaptable to landscape-scale projects.12
Figure 9: Landscape species such as marsh harrier are also termed umbrella species as they can be used to represent the health of a range of species that co-exist with them.
21
Semi-feral Konik ponies at the Wicken Fen Vision behave as landscape species as their grazing activities contribute to the shaping of habitats.
22
Cerapheles terminatus10, is a beetle species found at the Great Fen in 2009 and is likely to have come from the adjacent hotspot of Woodwalton Fen National Nature.
Amphibians as indicators of connectivity The nature of many amphibians means that connectivity between hibernation and breeding habitat is vital for their continued survival. The potential for expansion of populations within landscape-scale wetlands is high, and can be measured by fairly simple survey techniques. The National Amphibian Survey website, run by the National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme (NARRS), has more details about schemes currently running, and can be found at www.narrs.org.uk/natamphibsurvey.htm Plants as indicators of connectivity Plants are perhaps the most difficult group to rigorously monitor for migration and connectivity, as they may arrive through a wide variety of dispersal mechanisms, including on peoples rubber boots! The vegetation monitoring protocols set out in Table 1 (fine and broad scales) in this section are probably the most reliable tools for measuring change and picking up patterns of dispersal and spread. However, there are species which are associated with connectivity and dispersal which
can be targeted. These plants are almost exclusively alien invasive species which are frequently dispersed by birds, such as the now widespread Australian Stonecrop Crassula helmsii. Such species may spread rapidly within and between wetlands, and knowledge of their presence at an early stage is desirable so that control can be considered.
23
Landscape-scale wetland restoration projects are capable of storing significant volumes of water and of reducing flood risk in downstream areas.
24
25
26
Explaining how a project works by taking local people on a guided walk can help to break down misconceptions and engage peoples interest
accepted and viewed in a positive light, then communicating and engaging with local people throughout the process of developing a project is essential. One way of doing this is to involve them in monitoring activities as these can provide wonderful opportunities for volunteers to have fun and to learn more about the wildlife to be found in wetlands. Training in species identification and monitoring protocols requires projects
to employ skilled ecologists but provides volunteers with vocational skills, and the project with useful data. Volunteering also serves an important social function by bringing people together from local communities who share common interests. The retention of volunteers and the recruitment of new volunteers is one way of monitoring how interested and enthusiastic people are about the restoration work.
Practical Approaches to Wetland Monitoring 27
28
Case study
Mick Burton, volunteer at the Great Fen Project in Cambridgeshire
I volunteered for the Great Fen project in March 2005. I thought I could bring a bit of time, a lot of enthusiasm and a lifetime of bird watching, but I was looking for something too and I certainly got this in abundance. I have greatly extended my wildlife identification and other capabilities beyond ornithology. I guess most of the work I have done has been a bit of a busmans holiday bird surveys. However, I had not done any surveying before (just watching and record keeping) and now I organise winter and spring bird surveys across the Great Fen, involving a dozen or so other volunteers at various times during the year. So, I learned about how to design surveys and, in the course of this, developed a variety of GIS skills. Being around on the fen through the seasons I have also got involved in guided walks. These are fantastic as I can share my knowledge and enthusiasm with a range of others. I have one regular Customer now The Peterborough Tuesday Ramblers. They come 3 or 4 times a year and always make a generous contribution to the project. I am also a backup / additional guide for when the site manager or project manager organise visits. I have found the people involved in the Great Fen project (on a professional basis) really helpful and they are all willing to share their knowledge and experience. I have learned a lot from them and this has enabled me to extend my support into two other areas of natural history plants and insects. Not only is this helpful to the Great Fen, but it has given me a focus for my personal studies in these fields. This only represents a few of the things I have done. I have been fortunate to have been given many varied tasks all of which have been great fun. I organised the demolition of some old farm buildings, organised the framing of 80 Great Fen drawings and paintings, and even spent a couple of days lugging some of the gear for a wildlife photographer as part of Alan Titchmarshs BBC 2 series that included the Great Fen. I suspect that in the next 5 years there will be lots of equally rewarding experiences!
landscape-scale restoration projects in the UK. The process of collecting and archiving stories can be time-intensive, and should be undertaken by project staff that meet stakeholders on a regular basis and have a specific remit for collating and reporting on this information. An example topic likely to be prevalent at many restoration projects and that could be covered by the MSC method is public access to the project area. This topic has the potential if left unchecked to become a highly divisive issue. At the inception of a project, it could be envisaged that many local people would have concerns regarding reduced access to the project area, and so they might tell negative stories about their experience. Over time and as these concerns are recorded and addressed, their stories should become more positive. Comparison of these archived stories over time allows a semi-quantitative analysis of change to be made.
29
Volunteers being trained in water beetle identification at the Great Fen Project
30
Section 9: Who should undertake monitoring and how often should it be done?
At the same time as choosing which monitoring protocols to include, it is important to consider who will be responsible for collecting, analysing and reporting on field data, and the desired frequency of data collection for each protocol. Organising monitoring to be undertaken by staff, volunteers or professionals takes planning and sometimes considerable resources. at the start of a monitoring programme. In addition, many professionals are fully booked well ahead of summer field seasons, so booking them early is a priority.
9.1.1 Professionals/specialists
A protocol which is complex in design, time consuming and requires specialist skills should always be led by a professional individual such as an ecologist or hydrologist. Such protocols include detailed and fixed vegetation surveys, interpretation of remote sensing imagery, soil chemistry analysis, or surveys targeted at legally protected species. Employing professionals requires minimal staff time but will need a dedicated budget
31
Practical surveys which combine the skills of professionals and volunteers often result in a high volunteer retention rate for future years. This relationship is particularly popular with volunteers who are interested in learning more about the flora and fauna of their local area, and wish to be involved in broad scale surveys. Whilst these protocols can be expensive options to implement and maintain (provision of field equipment/microscopes, plant keys, travel & subsistence payments, etc + payment of professionals), they do present many positive outcomes for a project by providing practical and transferable skills, building a skilled and socially active volunteer network, and creating a positive image of the restoration project.
Birdwatching is an extremely popular pastime, with recent figures from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) stating that approximately three million adults go birdwatching every year in the UK. This popularity results in a large and diverse pool of potential volunteers who are well trained in bird song and visual identification. Utilising these local skills for wintering and breeding bird surveys, and offering sufficient training for volunteers to expand their skill base, provides useful data and also encourages a sense of inclusion for people who live near to (and sometimes within) large wetland reserves.
For features such as broad-scale vegetation patterns, annual monitoring is not required as long-term trends and changes can be measured at less frequent intervals, over many decades. Although it could be argued that the minutia will be missed, trying to capture every twist and turn in a projects evolution is expensive and unnecessary. Remote sensing techniques give valuable insights into vegetation change at a landscape scale, but aerial surveys will probably only be appropriate once every five or more years due to the flight costs and time involved in image interpretation. Other monitoring activities do need to be carried out annually and these require necessary professionals or volunteers and sometimes financial resources or specialist equipment to undertake repetition of the protocol. For example, breeding and wintering bird monitoring in the UK often follows protocols designed by the British Trust for Ornithology and requires annual surveys. Monitoring the impact of management on aquatic macrophytes may also require annual surveys, but a limited timeframe can be set for the completion of the survey, so that the results of monitoring can be acted upon. When initiating a wetland restoration project, the early stages of colonization are often the most important to monitor and can produce interesting and unexpected results which can inform future decisions on wetland creation and land management activities1, 2. Annual surveys are more justified in these circumstances, but can cease or become less frequent after the first few years. Surveys can always be re-visited in the future if more information is required, or different questions need answering. The timing of a survey, when repeated, should try and keep to the same date and month in all future survey years. By doing this, you help to eliminate general biotic and abiotic variation within seasons. However, sometimes it is impossible to plan for events which happen within a wetland environment. The arrival of a flagship species (for example a pair of breeding common cranes) can create great excitement, and often demands that resources are (at least temporarily) quickly directed towards the monitoring of such species. In such circumstances, a moment should be taken to assess objectively what is required from the monitoring, as any changes in the methodology in future years will undermine the statistical analysis that can be performed on the data.
9.1.3 Volunteers
The level of expertise and experience that volunteers bring to a monitoring programme can often be underestimated. Some will have just graduated with environmental degrees seeking practical skills, a few may be retired ecologists, many will be enthusiastic amateur naturalists, and others will have worked in a job sector which provides valuable organisational, financial or analytical skills. Choosing which protocols volunteers are involved in will, to a large extent, depend upon their background and experience. Once this is established, and after an initial period of training in which a methodology is clearly explained and practically demonstrated, volunteers may be given primary responsibility for the collection of data for numerous protocols, including broad scale monitoring of vegetation, bird surveys, repeated collection of water level measurements, carefully tailored mammal surveys, etc. It is advisable to explain the thinking behind landscape-scale conservation and teach a basic understanding of wetland ecology to put tasks into context, but narrowing the measurements volunteers are asked to take is a key factor in obtaining usable data and holding the interest of the volunteer. Lone working is not advisable for several reasons, the most important being health and safety, social inclusion, and practical support.
32
33
34
35
Table 3: Relationships between project goals, monitoring activities and project impacts or benefits at the Wicken Fen Vision1
36
37
Organising workshops to disseminate information can provide very useful opportunities for discussing a range of issues and for sharing monitoring experience.
38
39
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/ecosystems/ bio-soils/en/
3
Kratz, W., 1998. The bait-lamina test general aspects, applications and perspectives. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 5, 9496.
4
Pete Coppolillo, Humberto Gomez, Fiona Maisels and Robert Wallace (2004). Selection criteria for suites of landscape species as a basis for site-based conservation. Biological Conservation, Volume 115(3): 419-430 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V5X-48WJPTC-18&_cdi=5798&_user=1004260&_pii=S000 6320703001599&_orig=search&_coverDate =02%2F29%2F2004&_sk=998849996& view=c&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkWz&md5 =8d1ef989ccf773f5b880404223d7c353& ie=/sdarticle.pdf
7
Hughes, F.M.R. (ed) (2003) The flooded forest: guidance for policy makers and river managers in Europe on the restoration of floodplain forests. European Union-FLOBAR2, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/ flobar2/reports/final/flobar2.pdf
2
Margaret Palmer, Martin Drake, Nick Stewart (2009). A manual for the survey and evaluation of the aquatic plant and invertebrate assemblages of ditches. Buglife Report http://www.buglife.org.uk/Resources/Buglife/ Documents/Ditch%20Manual%20Version% 203.pdf
2
J.M. Amezaga, L. Santamara & A.J. Green (2002) Biotic wetland connectivity supporting a new approach for wetland policy. Acta Oecologica 23: 213222
8
Kevin Collier, Ude Shankar, Peter Smith (2004) Measuring stream network connectivity: how close is close enough? Water & Atmosphere 12(1): 14-15
9 10
Image from http://science.naturalis.nl/eisjubileum Peter Kirby (2009) Wicken Fen Vision and Great Fen invertebrate surveys available from the National Trust at Wicken Fen or the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough.
Biggs, J., Fox, G., Whitfield, M. and Williams,P ., 1998. A Guide to the Methods of the National Pond Survey. Oxford Brookes Pond Action.
3
11
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ documents/document.358.aspx.pdf
Dr. Marian Yallop (2008). A Study of the Diatom Assemblages in Grazing Marsh Ditches: Application to Assessment of Ecological and Conservation Status Part 1: Gwent and Somerset Levels. Bristol University. http://www.buglife.org.uk/Resources/Buglife/ Documents/Ditch%20Project%20-% 20Diatom%20Report%202008.pdf
4
12 Guidelines for designing mammal surveillance schemes are freely available via The Tracking Mammals Partnership (TMP) website http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1757 .
McCartney, M. P ., & de la Hera, A. (2004) Hydrological assessment for wetland conservation at Wicken Fen. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12:189-204. Soil maps can be obtained from LandIS, the Land Information System operated by Cranfield University http://www.landis.org.uk/index.cfm
Hill, M. O., Preston, C. D. & Roy, D. B. (2004). PLANTATT. Attributes of British and Irish Plants: Status, Size, Life History, Geography and Habitats. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Abbots Ripton. http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/publications/ PLANTATT-AttributesofBritishandIrish PlantsStatusSizeLifeHistoryGeographyand Habitats.html
5 6
Sanderson, E.W., Redford, K.H., Vedder, A., Coppolillo, P .B., Ward, S.E., 2002. A conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, 4156.
Springate-Baginski, O., Allen, D. and Darwall, W.R.T. (eds.) 2009. An Integrated Wetland Assessment Toolkit:a guide to good practice. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN and Cambridge,UK:IUCN Species Programme. Xv+144p. www.iucn.org/species
2
40
Davies, R. and Dart, J. (2005) The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique: A guide to its use. http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCguide.htm
2
There are several conservation-evidence websites. The Conservation Evidence website (based at the University of Cambridge and the University of East Anglia) can be found at http://www.conservationevidence.com/ and another similar initiative called the Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation (CEBC) based at the University of Bangor http://www.cebc.bangor.ac.uk/index.php.en? menu=0&catid=0 and its associated international partner website http://www.environmentalevidence.org/index. htm
Practical Approaches to Wetland Monitoring 41
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank a great number of individuals and organisations that have contributed materially or intellectually to our work on monitoring landscape-scale projects in the fenlands of East Anglia and to the development of this guideline document. The first 6 years (20072012) of monitoring at the Wicken Fen Vision and at the Great Fen have been funded by the Esme Fairbairn Foundation (Grant numbers 06-2151 & 092739), with contributions from the Environment Agency and Anglia Ruskin University. We are greatly indebted to these organisations for their generous support. We are also indebted to National Trust staff at Wicken Fen and to the Natural England and Wildlife Trust Staff at Great Fen for providing considerable logistical and moral support. To the members of our steering group committee, listed at the front of the document, we are indebted for lively discussions, intellectual input and frequent reminders of the practicalities of managing landscape-scale restoration projects! This document draws on our collective thinking over a number of years but has also been influenced by contributors to a workshop organised to explore ways to monitor and evaluate open-ended habitat creation projects, held at Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire, UK in November 2009. We would like to thank everyone who came and contributed to this workshop including: Bill Adams (University of Cambridge), Malcolm Ausden (RSPB), Peter Bircham (University of Cambridge), Jennie BloodSmyth (Volunteer Wicken Fen), Alan Bowley (Natural England), Richard Bradbury (RSPB), Philip Broadbent-Yale (National Trust), Alastair Burn (Natural England), Charlie Burrell (Knepp Wildland Project), Mick Burton (Volunteer Great Fen), Peter Carey (Independent Consultant), Iain Diack (Natural England), Chris Gerrard (Wildlife Trust), Simon Goodson (Wildlife Trust), David Gowing (Open University), Matt Heard (CEH Wallingford), Keith Kirby (Natural England), Peter Kirby (Independent invertebrate consultant), Martin Lester (National Trust), Blaise Martay (Anglia Ruskin University), Nick McWilliam (Oryx Mapping & Anglia Ruskin University), Owen Mountford (CEHWallingford), Kathy Newman (Volunteer Wicken Fen), Margaret Palmer (Buglife), Lorna Parker (Wildlife Trust), Lesley Saint (Environment Agency),Norman Sills (RSPB), Geoff Smith (Specto Natura), Chris Soans (National Trust), Jo Treweek (Independent environmental consultant), Stuart Warrrington (National Trust). Photographs have been taken by Bill Adams, Francine Hughes, Riamsara Knapp, Rachel Rees and Peter Stroh. The photograph of Cerapheles terminatus is by Roy Kleukers. Layout and design by Deb Tyrrell (Corporate Marketing, Anglia Ruskin University). Art work by Phil Stickler (Department of Geography, University of Cambridge).
42
For further information contact: Pete Stroh or Francine Hughes Department of Life Sciences Anglia Ruskin University East Road Cambridge CB1 1PT Call: 0845 196 2606 / 2607 Click: www.anglia.ac.uk/lifesciences Email: peter.stroh@anglia.ac.uk or francine.hughes@anglia.ac.uk
www.anglia.ac.uk