(NB This is the paper that was presented to the Recorders’ conference in 2001)
At the 1996 conference, For The Record, we were challenged by Tim Rich to think again about the way in which we, as naturalists, record the natural history of our county. He demonstrated that bias in the collection of species distribution data arose from various sources and significantly reduced the validity and usefulness of the results. Based on a three-year project to survey the flora of Ashdown Forest,
Tim provided five recommendations for improving the quality of data from field recording. In summary these were: -
1 Improve recorder ability;
2 Encourage each recorder to visit many different areas rather than concentrate on one;
3 Record for equal amounts of time in each grid square;
4 Ensure all habitats are visited in each grid square;
5 Ensure habitats are visited at different seasons.
Should we and can we implement these recommendations in recording the natural history of Suffolk?
In answer to the first question the answer must be yes. I am fully aware that the majority of recorders are amateurs giving their own time to the work of the SNS but that is all the more reason to ensure that that time is utilised more efficiently.
The fact that we are amateurs does not preclude us from carrying out valuable scientific research and personally I would like to think that I am building on the legacy of the great amateur scientists of the past rather than allowing my work to degenerate into the biological equivalent of stamp collecting. Coupled with this personal desire to improve things, there is an increasing demand for reliable data to counter the many and increasing threats to species and their habitats. I do not believe that we should be gearing our recording effort purely towards the needs of developers, conservation organisations and other such parties. However, where the data we have collected is relevant to the needs of other organisations, it should be reliable and not just provide a very partial, and thus distorted, picture of the ecology of a site or species.
The second question is less easily answered in my view. However I believe we have to try to implement at least some changes if we are to take natural history in Suffolk into a new century and as an organisation remain at the forefront of field ecology in the county. Taking the above recommendations one at a time it soon becomes clear that there is no single approach that is going to be equally applicable to the recording of all taxonomic groups. For most groups we do not have the large body of volunteer recorders that Rich had in mind when making his recommendations. Improving the ability of individual recorders is clearly a desirable aim but a structured approach to this is only likely to be relevant to the recording of the more popular groups e.g. birds, plants and lepidoptera. However all SNS Recorders should give consideration to the reliability of the records they receive from others and how this can be improved. The encouragement of interested individuals on general field meetings and through correspondence is a possible informal approach to training recorders in the less popular groups whilst specific field meetings and workshops such as those organised by the Mammal Recorders are likely to be most successful with the popular groups.
The second recommendation is also most relevant to larger groups of recorders.
Whilst getting to know your local patch well has undoubted benefits, the ability of individual recorders will be improved by experience of their chosen group in a variety of habitats and geographical locations. In addition the recording scheme benefits by getting individuals with specialisms in particular sub-divisions of a group to visit a variety of sites.
Although the third, fourth and fifth recommendations can be more easily achieved by larger groups of recorders, it is important that they are addressed by SNS Recorders in all taxonomic groups. It is essential that these factors are addressed in any interpretation of recording scheme data and the value of the data will be significantly increased if an attempt has been made to achieve them during the field surveys. One way in which the difference in number of recorders between groups could be recognised whilst still working towards these recommendations is by varying the size of the grid square on which a survey is based. A county flora survey may be feasible on a 1km square basis, whilst lepidoptera may be surveyed at tetrad level and spiders at 10 km square level. There are obviously going to be factors other than number of recorders that have to be considered in selecting the scale of a survey but we should always be aware that a rigorous survey at a relatively coarse scale is still going to have far more scientific validity and value than a more ad hoc survey at the finest scale.
So much for the broader issues but what about specific actions and how can the SNS help recorders to improve the validity of their data? As should be obvious from the above comments it is going to be down to each County Recorder to address the issues for their own recording scheme but even those of us working with the most obscure groups do not have to do this alone. Recorders in other groups may be able to provide support and talk through ideas, I would certainly be glad to discuss these issues in more detail with anyone who wishes. The SBRC is also an under used source of support. The SBRC website can provide a forum for recorders within groups and Martin Sanford would be keen to discuss these issues with recorders. SNS field meetings can provide assistance in terms of recruiting and training recorders and in providing access to sites that individuals may not get permission to visit. There are also four annual bursaries available for specific projects and recorders should consider how they could make best use of these.
In the longer term, a weakness of the present system of recording is that although much information is collected much of it never gets published and simply amasses year on year. The county distribution atlases have made good use of some of this data but for many taxonomic groups such an undertaking is unlikely to be feasible.
There is also a risk that such publications mark the end of recording rather than the starting point for a new phase. The excellent annual reports that recorders are now producing recognise the ongoing nature of our efforts but are unlikely to be anything like as comprehensive as an atlas in their coverage. Therefore I propose that the SNS and its recorders undertake a ten year county-wide survey of all taxonomic groups for which we have recorders, to culminate in a major review of each group to be published either in the Transactions or as a separate publication. Each taxonomic group would be covered at a depth appropriate to the recording effort available. On an even longer time scale the exercise would then be repeated every decade with the aim of monitoring the county’s natural history on a time scale that is feasible for amateurs whilst still providing valuable and rigorous data for conservation bodies etc. In support of this aim I would also propose that the field meetings programme is restructured to put recording back at the heart of SNS activities and assist in our future recording effort. Specifically I propose that at least five formal recording meetings are arranged each year. These could either be organised with the aim of visiting all 57 10km squares in Suffolk over a ten-year period or 25 key sites could be selected and visited on a five-year cycle. This latter approach has the benefit of providing an important monitoring effort for what could be the key wildlife sites within the county.
Don't forget you can download the whole of each White Admiral as a .zip file.
(Typically under 700 kb) ~ See the top menu.