MAKING IT COUNT FOR PEOPLE AND PLANTS PILOTING THE COMMON PLANTS SURVEY

FUTURE FLORA

49

MAKING IT COUNT FOR PEOPLE AND PLANTS PILOTING THE COMMON PLANTS SURVEY MARTIN HARPER Introduction The benchmark by which we need to judge the success of plant conservation is quite simple: birds and their guardian, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (R.S.P.B.). The R.S.P.B. has achieved a great deal over a hundred years of campaigning and conservation. For example, the joint R.S.P.B., British Trust for Ornithology (B.T.O.), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (J.N.C.C.) Breeding Bird Survey (and its predecessor, the Common Bird Census) has now been run for over 30 years. It is trying to broaden its appeal by encouraging new people to participate in collecting information about birds. A staggering 50,000 people took part in the R.S.P.B. Big Garden Birdwatch in 2001.

The R.S.P.B. has an annual income of £41 million, 158 nature reserves covering 240,000 acres and over 1000 staff. They represent an enormously powerful constituency which has delivered in the UK and further afield. They have clout, experience and are taken seriously at the highest level within Government. They are a fantastic model for any nature conservation organisation with ambition. But crucially it is the policy success with which I want to draw your attention.

In May 1999 the Government produced ‘A Better Quality of Life’. In it they laid out a series of tests or indicators of quality of life against which they wish to judge our success as a nation, and their success as a Government to be judged. In the foreword to this document, the Prime Minister elaborated about why sustainable development was important and why it was choosing to set traditional measures such as Gross Domestic Product (G.D.P.) alongside initiatives such as measuring the number of birds.

“In our own lives, we know the value of money. We know it can bring comfort, security, and new opportunities. But we also know that money isn’t everything. Feeling safe on our streets or in our homes. Enjoying our rich and diverse countryside. Knowing that a modern, dependable NHS is there when you need it. Living in strong communities. These all matter too …

That is why sustainable development is such an important part of this Government’s programme … We have to know what it is, to see how our policies are working on the ground … and this depends on devising new ways of assessing how we are doing. The indicators set out in this White Paper do this. They set traditional measures such as G.D.P. and employment alongside innovations such as measuring the number of birds, or how healthy we are, or the fear of crime” What a remarkable achievement to embed its own core agenda into the heart of Government thinking. And they did this by persuading Government that birds (!) were a good indicator of the overall health of the environment, by convincing them that the data was robust and that there was already shared ownership of data obtained through the B.B.S.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

50

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 38

The theme of this paper therefore is that information is power and that plant conservation must be made relevant to the public in order for it to have political resonance. The R.S.P.B. is a hard act to follow, but we need to learn from the lessons of those in the bird world to get to grips with the challenges facing plants in the 21st Century.

An Intoduction to Plantlife Plantlife is Britain’s only national membership charity dedicated exclusively to conserving all forms of plant life in their natural habitats: the nation’s champions of wild plants. It has 12,000 members, 22 nature reserves with a total land holding of 3,900 acres. It is ‘Lead Partner’ for 77 species under the Government’s Biodiversity Initiative. Conservation of these is delivered through a recovery programme called Back from the Brink. Plantlife involves its members as volunteers (called Flora Guardians) in delivering many aspects of this work. It acts as the Secretariat for Planta Europa, the European network of organisations and individuals interested in plant conservation and botanical research.

Those that are not currently members can join and receive three publications. Those that are members can recruit new members and receive six free bottles of organic wine. This is an unashamed membership push because I really believe that the growth of supporter base is crucial to demonstrate to the decision-makers that we represent a large constituency rather than a marginal perspective.

Plantlife involves its members in all aspects of its work for example by: • • • •

Clearing invasive non-native species such as floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides and Australian swamp stonecrop Crassula helmsii from aquatic systems Undertaking surveys for species in our species recovery programme such as Deptford pink Dianthus armeria Acting as minders for species such three-lobed water crowfoot Ranunculus tripartitus and shore dock Rumex rupestris, or Surveying our reserves such as Deep Dale, a marvellous Special Area of Conservation in Derbyshire.

We even have aspirations to get members involved in some of the more tricky species: • Devil’s bolete Boletus satanus demonstrated the need for volunteers to share records • Heterodermia leucomelos will test people’s lichen skills and Riccia huebeberiana may test budding bryologists • But anything is possible, and the enthusiasm shown at Plantlife fungus forays suggests that even difficult groups such as tooth fungi will test the willingness of members to get involved.

Finally, it goes without saying that campaigning demands engagement from the public and the campaign for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act for England and Wales was successful because of the massive support from

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

FUTURE FLORA

51

members of nature conservation organisations. More than half of Plantlife’s members filled in postcards to lobby the Prime Minister for improved wildlife laws and this gave me a fine opportunity to troop up to Number 10 Downing Street and deposit a sack full of pledge cards.

So Plantlife believes that the conservation is for people and ultimately we need people to do our work.

Common Plants Survey 2000 Background This is a joint initiative of Plantlife, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The different organisations offer scientific credibility, experience in volunteer mobilisation and can provide government ownership of resulting data. Partnerships are powerful and necessary given that we aim to secure data to help convince politicians that change is needed to protect our threatened plants.

The Conservation Director of the R.S.P.B., Mark Avery, suggested two and a half years ago that the lack of a common plants survey was holding back conservation. He said that it was the most important missing element in nature conservation. It is worth contemplating why R.S.P.B. felt like saying this.

Surely they were getting on fine without us. But the R.S.P.B. are of course masters of spin and believe that the diversity of nature conservation messages is vitally important. After all there are only so many occasions when newspaper editors will allow environment correspondents to run with stories with headlines about the decline in skylark numbers.

From the outset it was clear that we wanted to add value to the work of others and where possible to integrate our approach with other initiatives such as with the Atlas project and Countryside Survey 2000. We wanted annual information to help us not only to respond quickly to change, but also, and again there is no shame in saying this, to secure good stories on a regular basis which we can share and promote. These will not only benefit our organisations but also more importantly benefit plant conservation by raising awareness of the issues. Finally it is worth noting that the C.P.S. was promoted alongside the Cowslip Count.

Volunteer Resource David Bellamy’s welcoming remarks to the conference alluded to the remarkable volunteer resource which botany and plant conservation can draw upon. But plant conservation must appeal to more than just the experts.

Increasingly we are seeking to involve volunteers at different levels to learn from them about their aspirations for the countryside and to encourage them to help us in our work to document and respond to change in our flora. The need to tailor surveys to people with differing levels of expertise and commitment is shown in Figure 1.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 38

52

Figure 1. The volunteer resource

RARE Increasing rarity

Increasing expertise and commitment WIDESPREAD

COMMON

Number of species

The Cowslip Count, Common Plants Survey and indeed the Atlas all demonstrate that people of different skills can contribute to plant conservation in different ways.

Aim and objectives The aim of the Common Plants Survey is to co-ordinate an annual survey by volunteers of 58 plant species to provide information about the health of our flora. 2000 was our pilot year and the steering group advised us to take time in testing methods and see what works and what does not. The R.S.P.B., in particular, advised us to pilot our methods carefully as they have had a difficult experience in trying to integrate Common Bird Census data with Breeding Bird Survey data.

The objectives of the pilot were therefore to • • • •

Develop and trial methodologies for the detection of trends in 58 common plant species.

Extend the use of techniques developed within the Government’s Countryside Survey Project.

Identify the volunteer resource available for the Common Plants Survey, and assess its strengths, limitations and preferences.

Investigate and devise methods for the capture and handling of common plant data, building on existing tools such as Recorder 2000.

Methods Survey packs were circulated to those who requested them and this provided all the information needed for the participant/guinea-pig to take part. They were encouraged to record the presence/absence of 58 species in linear and

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

FUTURE FLORA

53

centre plots in randomly selected 1 km squares. They were also encouraged to visit their squares three times during the course of the field season.

Species were selected from 34 of the 37 species groups which had been categorised as part of the Government’s Countryside Survey. The species were chosen on the basis that they were the most easy to identify of the groups and were unlikely to be confused with other plants. The species are therefore representative of suites of species. The species include old man’s beard/ traveller’s joy Clematis vitalba from hedgerows, marsh marigold Caltha palustris from wetlands, thrift Armeria maritima from the coast and common poppy Papaver rhoeas from arable fields.

It is not practical to go out and record every individual of a species or repeat the Atlas every year and so some form of sampling is needed. It is essential that the results generated from the sample are representative of the situation in the population being monitored, otherwise the value of the results is diminished. Randomisation is important because if only the “best” sites are surveyed, we are likely to obtain a more rosy picture of how well plants are doing than is really the case. Random selection ensures that a representative cross-section if surveyed so that we obtain a balanced assessment, essential for determining conservation priorities. The more rosy scenario from the “best” sites alone, may lead us, erroneously, to believe that plants are faring extremely well in the countryside. This had been one of the problems in the early years of the butterfly monitoring scheme. The challenge is therefore to remove any bias. Meaningful extrapolation to a country-scale assessment has to be based on a representative, randomly selected sample. Over time it is expected that Atlas distributions will help focus effort and design the schemes.

Of course one of the downsides to randomised approach is that you do not always get the best sites – mine for example was in a field of wheat.

Fortunately it did have quite an interesting linear feature and I picked up some hedgerow species.

Results Even though this was the first pilot year, it is worth interrogating the preliminary findings as they can provide much information about the response of the volunteers and give an indication of what we are likely to be able to achieve over time. A summary report written by Ben Goodger based on analysis by Caroline Hallam is available from Plantlife priced at £5 including postage and packing.

Geographical Spread 168 surveyors recorded plots at 178 locations. 153 locations were recorded in England, 17 in Scotland and six in Wales. In addition, there was one location from Northern Ireland and one from Jersey. It is worth noting that one particularly keen individual from Lothian in Scotland visited nine squares. It will be fascinating to see if he will maintain this level of enthusiasm over the next few years as we encourage people to return to sites each year. Figure 2 shows the distribution of recorders across the UK.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

54

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 38

Figure 2. Dotmap of 10 km squares surveyed

Not surprisingly there is some patchiness in recording. It is worth remembering that the C.B.C. of R.S.P.B. started off with less than 200 recorders and now more than 2000 people are actively involved on a voluntary basis. In a sense the map helps us to begin to target areas for further promotion. Upland areas in particular appeared to be sparsely recorded and this is demonstrated by the habitats recorded in different plots.

Habitat Coverage Graph 1 shows the percentage of habitat types recorded in centre and linear plots and the majority of centre plots recorded were from grassland, arable or broadleaved wood and not surprisingly hedgerows and walls dominated the linear plots.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

FUTURE FLORA

55

Graph 1. Percentage of habitat types recorded in Centre and Linear Plots Number of species recorded in different plots Table 1 gives an indication of average number of species recorded in different plots. Perhaps the key thing to note here is the greater number of species recorded on average in the linear plot compared to the centre plot.

Table 1. Average number of species recorded in the different plots Whole Square Centre Plot Linear Plot Total no. of species records 3071 461 853 No. of locations where plot recorded 174 176 177 Average number of species per plot 17.65 2.62 4.82 Table 2. Top ten species recorded ordered by frequency Species Common Nettle Urtica dioica Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Cleavers Galium aparine Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata Greater Plantain Plantago major Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris Red Clover Trifolium pratense Herb-Robert Geranium robertianum Yarrow Achillea millefolium Common Chickweed Stellaria media

No. of locations % of locations 166 93 153 86 145 81 143 80 136 76 130 73 126 71 115 65 115 65 106 60

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

56

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 38

Table 2 shows the top ten species recorded in the survey. Of the 58 species recorded, the weedy species such as nettles and cleavers are most common.

These species are fairly typical grassland species. They thrive on fertile conditions and therefore tend to be ubiquitous.

Species Frequency Graph 2 shows the average number of species recorded per plot for each habitat. The overall averages slightly differ from Table 1 because a few plots were not given a habitat designation.

Graph 2. Average number of species recorded per plot by habitat type Species-Habitat Relationship More of the selected species were recorded in certain habitats such as grassland, arable/horticulture and broadleaved woodland. Less species were recorded in habitats such as sand dunes and standing water.

Discussion of results So what do the results tell us? The pilot year of the C.P.S. has proved successful and the results provide a useful data set from which decisions can be made about the future of the survey. Although comments on change in our common plants (the ultimate aim of the C.P.S.) cannot be made this year, some interesting findings have none the less emerged. The most frequent of the 58 species have been revealed in terms of sites surveyed and the most ubiquitous have been revealed in terms of habitats surveyed. Also, in line with other research, the C.P.S. appears to highlight linear features as centres of botanical diversity. Linear features include many generalist, edge species as well as some specialists such as woodland plants.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

FUTURE FLORA

57

The 58 species were originally chosen because they were thought to be indicative of specific habitats. However, the data seems to support the theory that our vegetation is becoming increasingly dominated by fewer, widely occurring species, such as hawthorn, cleavers, nettle and ribwort plantain. This is consistent with the findings of the Government’s Countryside Survey 2000 (CS2000) and the recent Plantlife report Where have all the flowers gone? by Peter Marren. CS2000 noted a change in habitat condition, with plant diversity declining in most habitat types because of increased fertility and Marren told a similar story by highlighting a worrying loss of the more vulnerable species at a local level. Eutrophication (enrichment by nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) is leading to a change in the chemistry of our soils and waterways and ensuring the domination of nutrient-loving “weedy” species which out-compete the less vigorous ones. This gives us an opportunity to raise the very real concern about the impact eutrophication is having on our flora. We have to make this issue accessible and understood by the public and politicians if we are to encourage Government and decision-makers to take action to address this issue. Plantlife will therefore in 2002 be publishing a synthesis of impacts on plants, drivers of eutrophication and offer a manifesto of policy recommendations which need to be implemented to protect our plants from this most insidious of threats.

Although we can draw some conclusions on the state of the countryside from this year’s results, the real benefit of the project will only be realised once many years of data have been returned. By continuing the C.P.S. in 2001 and beyond, changes in the frequency of occurrence of the 58 species and their correlation with specific habitats should be revealed. This will enable us to determine what is happening to our plant life in the wider countryside. The C.P.S. should provide a fascinating dataset in years to come, which will be crucial in underpinning arguments about the conservation of our wild plants.

Furthermore we can conclude that the volunteer resource does exist and can be mobilised to undertake this sort of survey. And perhaps more importantly the data obtained appears to be robust, although more effort will be needed to invest in data validation. This obviously bodes well for future surveys.

The dataset is useful and we can use this to plan future surveys.

Constructive criticism was received from surveyors, the BSBI and even the Countryside Management Division of DEFRA or the old MAFF. They raised concerns about the choice of species, the possibility of bias, the size of plots and the data required to detect cause of change. But crucially they welcomed the survey and looked forward to the usefulness of the programme increasing with time. All of these concerns are valid and need to be taken seriously into account. The feedback will therefore, of course, help inform future design.

Next Steps The 2001 survey was unfortunately cancelled due to the Foot and Mouth crisis. The consortium is committed to developing the pilot and was, like many organisations, frustrated by the horrors of the foot and mouth outbreak this year. But we have not been inactive. We have joined forces with the B.S.B.I. to develop an H.L.F. bid which will effectively deliver our vision for botanical recording In the UK to support, inform and underpin plant conservation in the

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 38

58

UK. This bid will be considered in January 2002 and its objectives are to: • Recruit volunteers to carry out plant recording within new and established survey projects; • Improve reporting on the state of the UK’s flora; • Improve the co-ordination of existing specialist volunteer networks.

• Encourage new audiences to participate in botanical recording by recruiting young people, people with disabilities and members of ethnic communities as volunteers National Biodiversity Network

SINGLE SPECIES SURVEY

Non-Specialist

Threatened Plants Database

INDICATOR SPECIES SURVEY

General Naturalists

THREATENED PLANT MONITORING

Expert

The diagram above illustrates how we plan to engage with and train people of different skills to participate in surveys tailored to their needs. This will feed into the information systems of the National Biodiversity Network. Ultimately we hope to be able to interpret the data, yes to generate stories and publicity, but ultimately to inform policy and legislation development. For how can I but concur with our President when he said in his message to the conference this morning that stronger legislation is needed at all levels to protect our flora.

If you want to get involved simply phone 0202 7808 0118 or visit Plantlife’s website www.plantlife.org.uk. We want as many people to get involved as is possible so please get in touch. The result should be not only hundreds or thousands of people having a good reason to enjoy our glorious countryside, but also future headlines in the intelligent press such as:

The Daily Mail Front Page 2nd October 2010 Conservationists revealed today that cowslip numbers have increased by 20% over the past five years.

The Department of Environment, Food and Rural and Affairs is praised for its tireless efforts to support plant conservation Partnership is key to help this dream become a reality.

Martin Harper, Conservation Director, Plantlife, 21 Elizabeth Street, London SW1W 9RP

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 38 (2002)