PondNet:

Developing a habitat based

surveillance network

for ponds

Dr Naomi Ewald

MTSS Workshop 2014

Overview

Working with local specialists and volunteers to gather pond data

PondNet aims:

To provide statistically robust data to identify trends in pond quality and pond species.

Using a habitat-based approach; recording a range of plants and animals.

Record environmental data; to explain the reasons for changes in biological quality

To use these data to protect and manage our freshwater resource.

What do we know about

ponds?

Definition

Any permanent or seasonal waterbody between 1m2 and 2 ha in surface area (1 ha=100x100 m)

Diversity in type = diversity in species and communities.

Field pond Loddington (Leicestershire)

We know that pond

biodiversity is important

• 2/3rds of all freshwater plants and animals can be found somewhere in ponds.

• Ponds support ~100 Priority Species under the England BAP (10% of the total).

• 1 in 5 ponds in semi-natural landscapes support a species of conservation concern.

We know that ponds are

threatened

• At GB level 2/3rds of ponds existing 100 year ago have

gone.

• Probably many millions more seasonal ponds, never

recorded, have disappeared.

• Better news from Countryside Survey data suggests the

number of ponds is now increasing.

• The real problem is pond quality.

PSYM metrics: observed vs

expected

0 10 20 30 40 50

Very poor

Poor

Moderate

Good

Very poor

Poor

Moderate

Good

Lo

wla

nd

En

gla

nd

an

d W

ale

sE

ng

lan

d a

nd

Wa

les

Percentage of sites in each PSYM quality band

LPS1996

CS2007

80% of ponds in ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ condition

The number of ‘Very Poor’ ponds increased by almost 20%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percentage of sites in each PSYM quality band

LPS 1996

CS 2007

Eng

land

and W

ale

sLo

wla

nds

on

ly

Good

Moderate

Poor

Very Poor

Good

Moderate

Poor

Very Poor

But, we lack statistically

robust monitoring

• Systematic monitoring of pond species restricted to a few

highly restricted species, e.g.:

• Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita)

• Pigmy rush (Juncus pygmaeus)

• Even highly protected, charismatic species such as great crested newts haven’t been adequately covered.

• Habitat data based on very few studies (from Freshwater

Habitats Trust’s perspective, this makes it difficult to influence policy makers).

• Few ponds surveyed before or after they are managed.

Issues with only recording

one taxonomic group

PondNet:

• Develop and test a new volunteer based surveillance network - centered around ponds and their associated taxa.

• Assess whether populations of key widespread and localised BAP species are changing.

• To establish “Are things getting better or worse for ponds and pond species in the long term – and why?”

• This will, in turn, provide information that will help to:

- tell us how well statutory targets are being met,

- influence environmental policy, and ultimately,

- protect our vulnerable freshwater resource.

PondNet trial regions

• The network is now at the end of a 2+ year trial (2011 -2013), largely funded by NE and Defra

• Cheshire• NE Yorkshire• South Hampshire, including the New Forest

• In year 1 we outlined the shape and size of the network and tested the methodologies for key taxonomic groups.

The methodologies were, wherever possible, compatible with existing methodologies – e.g. BDS monitoring protocols for dragonflies, HSI score criteria within the environmental recording form.

PondNet trial regions

• In year 2 we rolled out the trial more fully in the three regions:

• To better understand volunteer motivations and how to support them in the project, and

• To test the PondNet approach to ensure it would provide useful data to monitor change.

• Going forward we want to expand the network, and determine how to make it self-sustaining within existing national and local frameworks.

• We are beginning to work more closely with the LRCs in the trialsurvey regions, and

• Would like to engage more fully with the species groups at a local and national level.

What did PondNet record?

• Environmental variables

• Amphibians

• Dragonflies

• Wetland plants (metric)

• Invertebrate families

(metric)

• Wetland birds

• BAP plants (abundance)

• BAP invertebrates (abundance)

Site selection – widespread

network

• c.200 squares randomly

selected for general surveillance.

• c.550 squares for

surveying widespread

BAP amphibians (GCN and Toad).

• 50 squares provide

information on Priority

Ponds (highest quality sites).

Site selection – localised

network

• Ponds identified which are known

to contain a rare localised

species.

• > 50 additional ponds per

species.

• Monitoring targeted to sites where

the species are known to occur.

• Record abundance of these

localised BAP species at each

pond.

• And presence at adjacent ponds.

Volunteer recruitment and

support

• Recruitment through existing recording groups (mainly at a regional level), academic institutions, WTs and general advertising.

• Volunteer packs – landowner permissions, site notes (incl. access

details, species notes and H&S).

• Training for each taxonomic group - standardised methodology

assured, plus taxonomic expert.

• Mentoring of keen volunteers by FHT or an independent species expert.

• A dedicated officer to provide on-going support:

• Hampshire – year 1 and 2

• Cheshire – year 2 only

• Yorkshire – start up support only

• On-line recording system - Indicia.

Summary of results -

volunteer recruitment

Total

Number %

Links with local WT and recording groups 27 39

Universities 11 16

Contact with consultancies/ professionals 9 13

Internet/ social media 9 13

Word of mouth 7 10

National recording societies 3 4

Other 2 3

Summary of results -

volunteer training

South

HampshireCheshire

NE

YorkshireTotal

2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013

Number recruited 24 77 18 76 17 46 59 199

Training courses 2 13 2 7 2 6 6 26

Number that surveyed

squares and returned data23 51 11 26 9 20 43 97

• Training: requested for all taxa – the most valued element of PondNet

Total

2012 2013

Environmental data 58 101

Amphibians 25 64

Wetland plants 22 27

Aq. Invertebrate (families) 13 24

Dragonflies 5 15

Birds 13 6

BAP plants and invertebrates 45 55

Summary of results -

coverage and extent

Summary of results -

network targets

• BAP species: we achieved between 10% and 30% of the 50 site

target for individual BAP plants and invertebrates in the 3 regions.

• Bias: under-recording of wider countryside sites (32%).

Comparison with the national network

REGIONAL

TOTAL

Scaled up to national network

(n=42)

NATIONAL TARGET

Random squares 38 532 (46%) 188 (35%)

Great crested newt squares 25 350 (30%) 188 (35%)

Common toad squares 20 280 (24%) 164 (30%)

Priority ponds 14 196 50

Volunteers: %

Surveyed multiple taxa 34

Surveyed multiple squares 19

Surveyed multiple ponds 33

Undertook multiple visits for amphibians 40

• Amphibian surveys: Trade-off between number of visits to the same pond and number of ponds surveyed in the square.

Summary of results -

MTSS approach

Summary of results -

Quality Assurance

• Skill level : majority = low to moderate experience, few experts

: large number of novices for BAP plants /invertebrates

Accuracy (%)

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Environmental data 0 0 86 14

Amphibians 0 0 7 93

Wetland plants 10 29 33 19

Aq. Invertebrate (families) 10 20 50 20

BAP plants and invertebrates 0 14 29 57

Main findings

What worked?

•Many volunteers signed up and were trained

•Sufficient data to deliver the network aims for most taxa

What didn’t work?

•Interaction with Species NGOs at national level. Worked pretty well at local regional level.

•Indicia data entry interface – still a lot of work needed to make it more user friendly, and deliver more feedback to volunteers.

•Need systems for checking / validating records (see tomorrow also).

•Need clearer / agreed data-flow to get data to partners and others.

What else did we learn?

• Training is key to volunteer involvement.

• Appetite for multi-taxon approach.

• Expert volunteers needed to undertake key taxonomic groups.

• Mentoring needed to engage, support and bring on new volunteers.

• Key BAP and other species of conservation concern in other taxonomic groups to enthuse volunteers.

• A standardised approach – there is a lot of pond recording in the UK. Standard methods make all data more usable.

• Provides environmental data - critical for interpreting trends.

• Data are freely available to all – anyone can use, analyse, submit records through the system.

• Provides essential biodiversity data that is not being collected elsewhere. CS data and Atlases every 8-10 years – periodicity too long, too late.

The value of PondNet

Going forward

• Central coordination

Freshwater Habitats Trust HLF bid, starting Spring next year (2015), will be used to support PondNet development.

+ Incl. water quality monitoring and flagship sites

• Local coordination

The exact structure of the PondNet framework is still flexible.

One option (being explored this year) is through regional partnerships with LRCs (what barrier need to be overcome to make this possible? = more discussion tomorrow).

Species groups role in the network clearly beneficial but how can this be supported?

A possible shape for the

network

• Core network

Statistically robust network for monitoring stock and change of key species and habitats

• Incl. BAP/ SOCC network

Statistically robust network for monitoring change in populations of species of conservation concern

• Peripheral network (self-selected sites)

Existing / new sites selected by individuals or groups

- included in analysis to answer key questions, e.g. trends in high quality sites

- encourage multi-taxa approach

A possible framework for

the network

Freshwater Habitats Trust:

•National coordination

•Training the trainers

•Analysis of trends

•Protection and management through HLF

National species groups:

•Promotion of MTSS

•Inclusion of existing sites

•Selection of key species

Local species groups:

•Expert volunteers

•Species id training

•Volunteer mentoring

–incl. on-going QA

Local Recording Centres

•Local coordination

•Inclusion of existing sites

•Project training

•Volunteer recruitment

Central on-line data hub

Volunteer recorders

Acknowledgements