Another week goes by....

My blogs are getting fewer and fewer. And for those that read them my apologies. However, the reason is that the World Land Trust is getting busier and busier. Despite the recession, we are getting more and more companies wanting to support us. I have mentioned this several times already, but it is still true. The current interest is clearly influence by the up and coming discussions in Copenhagen relating to Climate Change, and carbon offsetting. However, I think we are all missing one major issue, which is only faintly heard in the background. The 'elephant in the room' is the human population. Recent predictions indicate that the UK's population is going to grow to an unsustainable 70 million or more. But this is insignificant compared with the predictions for other parts of the world.

As far as I am concerned there are two over-riding priorities for conservation: first save as much of the world's natural habitats as possible, and second support any initiative that addresses the human population crisis. Everything else pales into insignificance by comparison. This is not to say that the myriad other conservation activities are not worthwhile, but without natural habitat in the future, captive breeding, research etc are all futile.

Population press release

For this blog, I have simply pasted a press release from the Optimum Population Trust. The World Land Trust and OPT share the same Patron (Sir David Attenborough) and I believe that the activities of OPT are every bit as important as anything the WLT does. Politicians still avoid the P word, but human Populations are the only real threat to the planet. Read on.......

CONTRACEPTION IS “GREENEST” TECHNOLOGYFamily planning cheapest way to combat climate change
Contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate change, according to research published today (Wednesday, September 9).
Each $7 (£4) spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a tonne. To achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32 (£19). The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust from the London School of Economics*, concludes that “considered purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions”, family planning is more cost-effective than leading low-carbon technologies. It says family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction.
Meeting basic family planning needs along the lines suggested would save 34 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2 between now and 2050 – equivalent to nearly six times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.
Roger Martin, chair of OPT, said the findings vindicated OPT’s stance that population growth must be included in the climate change debate. “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up. The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal. Stabilising population levels has always been essential ecologically, and this study shows it’s economically sensible too.

“The population issue must now be added into the negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.** This part of the solution is so easy, and so cheap, and would bring so many other social and economic benefits, from health and education to the empowerment of women. It would also ease all the other environmental problems we face – the rapid shrinkage of soil, fresh water, forests, fisheries, wildlife and oil reserves and the looming food crisis.

“All of these would be easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more. Meanwhile each additional person, especially each rich person in the OECD countries, reduces everyone’s share of the planet’s dwindling resources even faster. Non-coercive population policies are urgently needed in all countries. The taboo on discussing this is no longer defensible.”
The study, based on the principle that “fewer people will emit fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide”, models the consequences of meeting all “unmet need” for family planning, defined as the number of women who wish to delay or terminate childbearing but who are not using contraception.*** One recent estimate put this figure at 200 million. UN data suggest that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 billion. Between 2010 and 2050 12 billion fewer “people-years” would be lived – 326 billion against 338 billion under current projections.

The 34 gigatonnes of CO2 saved in this way would cost $220 billion – roughly $7 a tonne. However, the same CO2 saving would cost over $1trillion if low-carbon technologies were used.

The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 (£15) for wind power, $51 (£31) for solar, $57-83 (£35-51) for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 (£56) for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 (£80) for electric vehicles.

However, the study may understate the CO2 savings available because the estimates of unmet need are based on married women alone, yet some studies suggest up to 40 per cent of young unmarried women have had unwanted pregnancies.

Mr Martin added: “The potential for tackling climate change by addressing population growth through better family planning, alongside the conventional approach, is clearly enormous and we shall be urging all those involved in the Copenhagen process to take it fully on board.”
NOTES:
*Available at http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf
**In a statement issued last month, OPT called on climate change negotiators to ensure that population restraint policies are adopted by every state worldwide to combat climate change. Family planning programmes in poorer countries should be treated as legitimate candidates for climate change funding. The statement was endorsed by OPT patrons including Sir David Attenborough, Dr. James Lovelock and Jonathon Porritt. See: www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/climatechange09.pdf.
***A recent study by Oregon State University concluded: “A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with [their] day-to-day activities when assessing [their] ultimate impact on the global environment.” See Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals, by Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences/Department of Statistics, available on sciencedirect.com. The authors calculate that in the US each child adds 9,441 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, equivalent to 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. See also: A Population-Based Climate Strategy (OPT Research Briefing) at http://www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/opt.sub.briefing.climate.population.May07.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
See www.optimumpopulation.org or telephone 020 8123 9116

Easter weekend

A few days away from the office, and some glorious spring weather. Slow worms were under the sheets of corrugated iron that I have strewn around the garden to provide a hiding place for them. Also a common shrew and a bank vole were under the sheets as well. The dawn chorus seems a bit better than recent years with at least four singing male blackcaps. And I saw my first swallow on Saturday. And best of all, in our tiny patch of woodland, I found a nice crop of Morels -- a spring fruiting fungus, that is truly delicious.

And an interesting piece of behaviour. Over winter I have kept our five Japanese Quail in the greenhouse -- they hate the wet cold English winter, and seemed very happy, and became exceptionally tame. On Sunday, I decided to put some seed trays in the green house, and gave it a thorough wetting, and the quail also had a great time in the shower. Then next day their behaviour totally changed. They became very flighty -- they had only ever run around, never taking flight -- and very vocal. Did the shower I had given them, trigger a migration response? Unfortunately none of the books I have (including the Handbook of Birds of the World give any information that enlightens me on this. Any leads from my readers would be
welcome.

And so today, back to work, with a few donations resulting from Simon Barnes' article in the Times (fewer than I expected, probably because with the beautiful weekend weather, no one was reading their papers, they were all in the garden!)

Burton's Biomass Extinction theory

Having just returned from Kenya, where the human population has pretty well doubled since I first visited, I was musing on the impact of this vast quantity of biomass.

When looking at endangered species and declining species, despite a huge number of factors being cited as direct causes or even indirect causes, one area that appears to have been generally overlooked (or at least unquantified) is the carrying capacity of habitats related to biomass. In general, any given habitat can support a certain biomass of plants and animal species. This biomass can be increased by removing predators, by introducing fertilisers, and various other methods of short-term production. Some habitats will also store biomass in the form of carbon (such as peat) but essentially most habitats probably exist in some sort of equilibrium as far as the biomass is concerned, even if there are short term fluctuations and cycles.

If any of my readers know of publications on this topic, I would welcome references. One of our recent students looked at the issue in relation to the increase in goats and cattle, and the displacement of antelope and other wildlife, but found very little published data. And since Oxfam, Christian Aid and others continue to market the idea that goats are a solution to the issues of poverty, this has direct relevance.

If we examine areas where human interventions have increased the biomass of humans, their domesticated livestock, and crops, it comes as no surprise to observe that the biomass of the species previously existing in those areas has decreased, and with the decrease in biomass, there is also a loss of diversity (the latter being the phenomenon most commonly described). However, most of this dramatic increase in biomass has only occurred in the last two centuries, and consequently the impact on species loss may not yet have had a major impact, as many species are fairly resilient. But my view is that many species, over a relatively short period of time will start to show rapid declines to the point of ecological extinction, as the simplified ecosystems created by the human-livestock-crop interrelationships, will encourage a few relics of the wild ecosystem to become dominant, with others careering towards extinction. The only way of reversing this trend is to allow the human-livestock-crop-wildlife relationship to become more complex (by encouraging more natural cropping systems, less use of pesticides and herbicides), and by reducing the overall biomass of humans and their livestock.

Compounded with the increase in the increase in human related biomass, there has also been a massive decrease in the area available for natural biomass to co-exist. Vast areas are now given over to urban developments and infrastructure, much of which involves the total replacement of natural vegetation and habitats with roads, housing and other solid materials. This is most clearly visible in a country such as England, where even once common species such as the house sparrow are declining, along with most birds found in arable farmlands. But it is also true in a country such as Kenya, where not only has the human population increased dramatically, but urban areas have spread, and the numbers of domestic livestock has increased even more dramatically than that of the human population. And at the same time, the areas available for grazing this huge biomass of domestic livestock has been significantly reduced by the spread of agriculture. This leads to overgrazing, depletion of the soils, so that agriculture becomes dependent on artificial fertilisers, in order to maintain the levels of plant biomass.

If the theory that biomass, as much as biodiversity is playing a role in the maintenance of ecosystems, then there is an even bigger catastrophe waiting in the wings, but because much of this is a very recent phenomenon - essentially post 1950 - it is too early to speculate on the scale of the extinction. However if this theory is correct, then we may be beginning to see a wave of extinctions that even the worst pessimists of the end of the 20th century couldn't have predicted.

Living in Balance with Nature. Is it possible?

Re-reading my recent Anonymous critic, I noted the claim that "...in biblical times people had great respect for animals and their environment..." * This is a claim a bit like the one often trotted out that indigenous people live in harmony with nature -- the modern version of the Noble Savage from the age of enlightenment. It's a great and noble concept. Unfortunately there is very little empirical evidence to support the idea. Throughout history, humans have lived at the edge of their technology. The reason that most indigenous tribes in South America haven't exterminated the wildlife is they didn't have guns. The reason the forest was not felled is they didn't have chainsaws. And in 'biblical' times every effort was being made to wipe out lions, wolves and other wildlife that threatened humans or their crops. I firmly believe that it is essential to involve indigenous communities and all other local communities in conservation efforts. But I also believe they should not be seen through rose-coloured spectacles. One of the reasons that humans lived in balance in the past was because they had high mortality rates -- and not just from disease, it was often inter tribal warfare, geronticide, or infanticide. I don't believe there would be much support for encouraging a return to this as a way of achieving sustainability.

The WLT is helping fund projects in South America that involve indigenous communities and other local peoples in the decision-making process that conserves land and wildlife, because without local support the long term prospects will never be good. Hunters turned wardens are just one way of using local knowledge, but we believe it is even more important to involve all local people at as many levels as possible. Imposing conservation from the outside can only ever be effective in the short-term, and is likely to leave a legacy which does not help the long term.

I am about to travel to Kenya and Tanzania, to see if there is any way the WLT can assist local conservation initiatives -- and both countries have numerous examples of the problems caused by conservation being pushed from the top down, as a legacy of good intentions during the colonial era. It is not simply a case of bottom up initiatives, which can often result in simply creating a new and different problem. More a case of full participation with all the stakeholders (to use the pc jargon).

If any of my readers want to support conservation in Africa, now is your chance -- deatils to follow when I return, after 15 February.

*I am not sure when biblical times were. Presumably when people in the bible were alive or when the authors were alive, so up to about 300 AD?

Buy land. Save wildlife. 27 years crying in the wilderness

I was doing some filing over Christmas, and I came across some newspaper cuttings dating from September 1981. I had created a furore by giving a paper at the Annual Meeting of the British Association in which I pointed out that while millions of pounds were being spent on preserving post-Pleistocene relics such as the Giant Panda, thousands of species were going extinct in the rainforests.

According to a report in the Times of the 5th September 1981 I "called for a radical change in the approach of conservationists, and urged them to move away from funding research in favour of acquiring land to protect species...." At the time I was the Executive Secretary of the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society (now Fauna & Flora International), and my comments on the fate of the Panda led to calls for my resignation.

However it was not until five years later that I left the FFPS, and soon after that I did put my money where my mouth was, and founded what has become the World Land Trust. But in the intervening quarter of a century the situation has continued to deteriorate, and we are still a voice in the wilderness (what is left of it). Economic crises have come and gone, the world's human population grows ever more out of control, poverty increases in Africa, more and more aid is poured in to poorer countries, arms flood the world. And millions of dollars, yen, pounds, euros etc, are still being spent on (often pointless) research into endangered species. All of this continues, but wilderness, wild places natural habitats also continue to disappear at an even more alarming rate.

So. Despite all the gloom and doom, if you are inclined to make New Year resolutions, can I urge all readers to spread the word? If we want to conserve wildlife for the future, there is only one way that is truly realistic: save habitats.

The World Land Trust has shown how it can be done. We can never do it on our own, but our world-wide network of small, dynamic NGOs is helping spread the word. Our target for 2009 is to raise at least £5 million. Next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. But if much of that comes from donations of £50 or £100, and if the rest comes from the corporate world, the multiplier effect is significant. And if it is spent through strong and integrated partnerships, then it is multiplied even further.

I was recently asked why the WLT had become so successful over the past few years. The answer is very simple: Because we are successful and transparent. Success breeds success, and we can demonstrate some of the most successful conservation projects , some of the the most cost effective projects, and some of the most sustainable projects. Others are now copying us, with varying degrees of success. But our model is certainly effective.

But PLEASE HELP 2009, OUR 20TH ANNIVERSARY, BE OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL YEAR SO FAR.

Collins New Naturalists

The Collins New Naturalists are a British institution. Not only are they a particularly fine series of reference books on British wildlife and natural history, the series has become even better known as highly collectible. There is no question that the volumes contained within the series remain among the finest books available on the topics they cover, and even those that are out of date, still remain useful as historical documents. Some of the volumes have been completely rewritten and revised, but even in these cases, the original, long out of date volume, still remains useful.

But as collectors items, the series epitomises the stupidity of collectors, who collect for collecting's sake. The fanatical collector of new Naturalists must have the first printing of the first edition, complete with mint dust wrapper. And of course, this often means that the first printing of a first edition had minor printing errors, that were later corrected. And in many cases dust jackets were what they claimed to be: Covers to keep the book clean, before sale. In the case of the Collins NNs, however, the dust wrappers were beautifully designed, and deservedly became collectors items in their own right. However, because of the collectors' market, dust wrappers became valued beyond any real intrinsic worth, and of course are very easy indeed, with modern high quality photocopying facilities, to fake.

If ever you come across a New Naturalist collector (and many of them are genuinely interested in natural history as well, they will, like so many collectors tell you how much this and that is worth, and how their prized possessions are increasing in value. The reality is rather different. If you were to compare the price of many of the books with their original value when sold, they have declined. A book costing 30s in the 1940s, when a week's wage could be under £5.00, may still only fetch £20-£30 . And a quick search of the internet will show that many of the so-called rarer volumes can still be picked up for relatively modest sums. And of course, for the real naturalist, there is the advantage, that reprints and ex-library copies, usually under a fiver, abound. Allegedly, one of the rarest was a monograph on Ants, published in the 1950s, and apparently withdrawn from sale soon after publication. But if this was the case, there are still a remarkable number of even this, which should be the rarest of the rare, floating around.

I cannot take too seriously the collectors market, but it is gratifying in one way -- it means that HarperCollins have got a guaranteed market for new volumes, on almost any subject they like to publish, however specialised.

The Menace of the Cat

The Menace of the Cat is the title of a leaflet I purchased on ebay recently, with a couple of other items all dating from 1922 and earlier. And it is an issue that has not gone away. My ebay purchases were all published in the USA, and despite all the evidence of the enormous damage that domestic and feral cats cause to wildlife, in almost all parts of the world, they are still allowed to roam free. In 1922 it was estimated that cats, in New York State alone, were responsible for killing at least 3.5 million birds, mostly songbirds.

These early pamphlets were all advocating licencing of cats, as a way of controlling their numbers. In fact, the spread of rabies has helped control cats in many parts of the US, as cat owners don't want their pets to come into contact with wild possums, raccoons and other species. But in Britain cats are probably more abundant than they have ever been. And almost every cat owner will defend their darling moggies claiming either 'They don't kill birds' or 'They only kill the occasional bird'

But even with a low estimate of the number of cats in Britain, of 10 million, back in 2003, the Mammal Society estimated that cats killed around 300 million mammals and birds a year. Another point to bear in mind is that cats often kill birds when they are at their most vulnerable -- when feeding young, and gathering food for nestlings. And cats do not always kill for food. They are often well fed, with cat food (another subject for the environmentally conscious), and consequently will kill to excess.

But it is a political hot potato, and I can't see the RSPB taking up the cudgels and lobbying for cat licensing, or a ban on cats roaming freely. Nor BirdLife International. The American Bird Conservancy, is one of the few major bird organisations that has really stood up and put its head above the parapet.

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/

But unlike many of the other ways that wildlife is under attack, free roaming cats are something we could bring a halt to. Once upon a time dogs roamed the streets of England -- in my childhood I remember them being let out of an evening in suburban London -- and that is now a thing of the past. Time the same happened to cats?

Brazilian hardwoods

I have a large old shed covered with what I thought were very wide elm boards. And recently when remodelling the shed, we moved some of the boards around, and made a discovery. Stamped on one was 'Made in Brazil'. So they weren't elm at all. They were tropical hardwoods -- no wonder they were in such good condition after so long. There is no way I could feel guilty, they were old, dating from ca. 1984, if not before, they were being re-used when they were first put on the shed, and I was now re-using them again. And this is what is so important. Re-using is always better than recycling, and I am horrified at the vast quantities of perfectly good timber (mostly from pallets) that I see going into skips. It is perfectly re-usable. Pallets make extremely good compost bins. Four tied together creates a very good bin, which if bought custom made will cost £50 or more. So rather than just switching off a light, or the standby on the TV, why not re-use some timber? And help save the rainforests.

Parochial issues

After a gap of many years, a couple of years ago I resubscribed to BB (British Birds Magazine, to the non-British readers of this), and have found the content a delight to read. However, my reading is blighted by the ludicrous use of nomenclature. In this tercentenary year of the Birth of Linneaus, it is worth recalling that Scientific names were developed in order to provide stability, and to ensure that scientists knew precisely which species was being discussed. However, BB along with many county bird reports, now not only use latin names as if they were confetti, but also try and use 'international' standardised vernacular names. This, to me totally misses the point, and wastes a lot of space. Provided a standard nomenclature is used, there is absolutely no necessity to have both scientific and vernaculars, and, certainly no need, in a paper on British Birds to refer to Eurasian this and European that. If it is deemed essential to have latin names, then each issue could have an appendix at the back giving them. This would make papers a lot easier to read and save endless repition of latin names.

The reason this came to my attention was that not having kept up with recent taxonomic changes I came across this new species of bird, the Great and Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) (see Vol 100:528). Of course it dawned on me pretty quick, this was the Great Tit (Parus Major) and Blue Tit (P. caeruleus). But the thought of the Great and Blue Tit as a lifer has a certain appeal.

Jackdaws on Dung

This morning I saw a sight that I found very encouraging. There were jackdaws feeding on the heaps of llama dung in our garden. Ever since we aquired a few sheep and three llamas, I have become aware of the problems of worming of these animals. Many vetinarians, and farmers believe it is essential to worm livestock regularly (never mind the fact that until the 1950s, most farmers managed without such treatments. And the helminthicide often used is Ivermectin, which is very persistent, and survives in the dung, to kill or deform the invertebrates that feed on the dung.

I have never wormed our animals, which remain perfectly healthy, and so over the past year it has been encouraging to see various scatophagous flies and beetles around the dung heeaps (llamas are communal dungers). And then to see jackdays probing for grubs was just great. We are all aware of the loss of woodlands and forests, but in England at any rate, the loss of grasslands and all the associated ildlife is considerably more significant.

Grass Snakes, spring, and fresh air

Last weekend was Easter, and for once the long weekend was notable for some glorious weather. At least where I live it was. And so it was an ideal time to get out into the garden. Our principal objective was to 'sort out' an acre of woodland. A huge old oak had crashed to the ground in a recent gale, taking with it a completely rotten even older tree. And the rest of the 'wood' was suffering from a surfeit of straggling elder and blackthorn. The end result was that it was almost impossible to walk around, the ground was pretty well devoid of any plant life, and there was a lot of dead wood.

Now this is a dilemma, because any good naturalist likes lots of fallen trees, and lots of dead wood. So the answer was to get in with my chain saw, and create numerous log piles -- that way all the wood remained, but in a slightly 'tidier' manner, enabling access and light to get in. In the process, we made a couple of bonfires, to dispose of a small proportion of the extraordinary amount of twiggery that remained when clearing the elder. And that proved to be a disaster.

The morning after, I found a medium-sized (2foot) grass snake, dead in the ashes of the fire. At first the reaction is to think it must have been in the twigs -- just as hedgehogs get roasted when a heap of garden rubbish is burned -- but that simply was not possible.

No the explanation is that reptiles regulate their body temperature when their innards get hot. So they bask away in the sun until the centre of the body is warm enough for action, and then, off they go. The warm ashes of the fire probably attracted the snake, but by the time its innards were nicely warm, its skin and outer parts were, unfortunately, cooked. It's a point worth remembering if you have a bonfire in summer, with reptiles around -- rake out the fire, so that they are not attracted in the cooler hours. I wish I had known of the risk, as it is really sad to see wildlife end in this way, particularly when grass snakes are probably in a steep decline in most parts of England, if the numbers dead on roads are anything to go on.

Spring is sprung, and there are flies on the dung

Hooray. I was clearing up our little meadow, and delighted to note a great cloud of Scatophagid flies. Dung flies. Our llamas and sheep have not been wormed since we had them and the first couple of years there were no dung flies -- largely I suspect because many of the farmers round about pump ivermectin and other helminthicides into their livestock, and prior to our ownership they had been wormed.

We have been heavily grazing an acre and a half of what was a field of nettles and thistles three years ago. Now it is already a nice short turf. The next stage is to reduce fertility and hope that wildflowers come back -- perhaps with a bit of help from me. One of the ways of reducing fertility of soil, is by removing all the dung of the grazing animals. This where llamas are good -- they are territorial dungers. Their little, well digested, pellets are deposited in heaps, and are suitable for digging into the garden straight away.

And while I was clearing up one of the llama dunghills, I found a lovely seething mass of earthworms. Even better.

But elsewhere, farmers are still pumping their livestock fill of anti worming compounds many of which will destroy all the invertbrates that feed on the dung. Earthworms and dungflies may not be the most popular of creatures, but the world will be a lot worse off without them. Yet another example of biodiverstity being whittled away, and like the bricks of a jenga tower, one day the whole ecosystem will collapse.

Nature notes: From Acorns grow mighty oaks

Walking the dog last autumn I also gathered a bag of acorns for Richard, our pet pig. And while gathering them I pondered why there were so many acorns. A huge oak produces vast numbers of acorns year after year (does anyone know exactly how many?), and an oak may live for several hundred years. But in the grand scheme of life, all it really needs to do is reproduce itself. So why does it have so many acorns? One possible explanation is that it prevents a disease, such as Dutch Elm which devasted the largely clonal English Elms, from wiping the entire species out. But another idea which occurred to me is that it may be a mechanism for preserving a species over longer periods of time. Perhaps time on a geological scale. Is it possible, for instance that among those millions and millions of acorns that there is one that could grow into an oak that is adapted to tropical conditions? One that is not deciduous? One that is capable of surviving arctic conditions? One that can survive waterlogged soils? This seems highly probable. This means that over a period of centuries, when climate change becomes a reality, the odd oak would survive, to start new generations. Just a thought -- and not something it would be very easy to demonstrate experimentally.

There was a bumper acorn crop last year in Suffolk, and there was also a bumper crop of blackberries, which are now withered and dry on the bramble bushes. This latter is worrying -- where were all the birds that normally would have grown fat on the crop? A stretch of hedgerow that would have had perhaps 2 or 3 pairs of whitethroats, a pair of lesser whitethroats a blackap etc etc, had but a single pair of whithtroats nesting in it, and during the migration season no noticeable influx of birds. Where are all the birds? As I write, early in 2007 it is still noticeable how few birds there are around compared with previous years. But more worrying is if I think back over the 50 years I have been watching birds, there is a huge number of species, once abundant, now rarely seen, a huge number of birding localities disappeared under concrete. And that's without taking into account of the millions and millions of hectares of habitat that have disappeared in the wintering grounds of our summer migrants. In fact it's a miracle there are any summer migrants left.

Swifts swallows and martins

It's that time of the year when the swifts hurtle around Halesworth in their mad, dashing screaming parties. We're in the midst of a hot, sunny spell and it's been a good summer for swifts. In a cold wet summer, swifts have the ability to go into a semi-torpid stae, and often their breeding success drops to zero. This is not a serious problem for swifts as they are exceptionally long-lived for a small bird -- perhaps living up to 20 years. But despite the warm sunny weather, insects are far from abundant, and swallows and martins seem to be continuing to decline, along with other binsectivorous birds. Last year a pair of spotted flycatchers that nested under the eaves of our house as far back as anyone in the neighbourhood could remember, failed to return. And they did not come this year.

Insects seem to be in some sort of free-fall decline, with most of the specialist organisations, dealing with dragonflies, butterflies and other groups reporting more and more species as disappearing. Local success stories with a few spectacular butterflies obscure the fact that huge numbers of insect species are disappearing. And more worrying is the fact that the total biomass also seems to be declining.

When I grew up in London in the 1940s and 1950s flies were everywhere in summer. Now it is possible to sit in a street in London (and even the suburbs) eating a meal, and not see a single fly. It is a miracle that there are any house martins and swallows left.

Worm tablets

Last weekend I was out in the first warm sunshine gathering llama dung. Now this may sound a trifle odd, but the background is this. My wife and I have about three acres of land, most of which is managed as a garden for wildlife. It is not large enough to be a proper nature reserve, and it has all been recently cultivated. There is a small spinney (with a rookery), and we have vegetable patches, a small orchard and flower gardens. But the largest part is grassland. Unimproved grassland is among the rarest habitats left in England, and consequently we are doing our best to revert two small fields back to something that approximates to an old meadow. Having mown off the nettles and thistles which had become dominant before we purchased the land, we then introduced five sheep to graze. And subsequently three llamas.

The llamas are ideal for grazing meadows as one of the problems of improved grassland is that it is nutrient rich, with grasses dominating. In order to revert to a flower rich meadow, the nutrients need to be reduced, and this is where the llamas come in. Unlike sheep, llamas are territorial, and deposit their dung in heaps, communally. This means that the dung can be removed from the field. Not only that, it is nicely pelleted, and can be put straight on the garden.

This is why I was out, last Sunday, collecting llama dung. But while I was collecting it I was aware that there were very few invertebrates crawling around in it -- just the odd earthworm. Surely there should have been maggots of dung flies? Perhaps it was too early in the year, but it did remind me of some reading I had been doing over winter concerning the use of helminthicides, and the massive impact on invertebrates. Helminthicides are used to control worm infestations in sheep and cattle, and most farmers now routinely dose their livestock. But the impact on wildlife is going largely unreported, although as far as I can make out, it could be having an impact comparable to the insecticides of the 1950s. The countryside is losing its flies and other invertebrates at an alarming rate, and because most people don't like flies, little fuss is being made. But the impact on birds and other wildlife is devastating.

Perhaps some of the campaigning groups -- such as Greenpeace and FoE could look into the problem. Much as I would like the WLT to get involved, we simply do not have the resources.

Species increasing

Not all species are declining. A classic example is the Little Egret, which over the past couple of decades has greatly expanded its range in Europe. It has colonised Britain, and is now breeding in many parts of southern England. Last year driving back and forth between my home office and the World Land Trust office, I saw several prospecting trees along the river bank.

And then last weekend I saw one in our own garden. We have a small copse, which has a rookery with about a dozen nests in it, close to a stream and a pond -- an ideal site for a small heronry -- so parhaps we will have little egrets nesting in our backyard within a year or two. I certainly hope so. It would justify all the effort we have been putting into habitat restoration. Next to our copse is a field of about two acres, which we have been mowing to eliminate the nettles and thistles (over a metre high when we moved in), and are now grazing the field with llamas and sheep. The open, unsprayed meadow should be ideal for egrets, as they also often like to asociate with grazing animals.
Fingers crossed, watch this space.

Recreating meadows

A success story

Over the weekend I got some heartening news. A friend phoned earlier in the week to say he had heard a Corn Crake calling in a meadow he had created a few years ago. What should he do? I suggested he phone the RSPB, who after initial skepticism, having heard a tape recording came rushing round. It was indeed a male Corn Crake, and the RSPB also caught the bird, and established the fact that it was not one of the birds that had been released into the wild as part of a reintroduction programme. It was not ringed. Which all goes to show, if you create the right habitat, then wildlife can, and often will, flourish. The hay meadows were created out of arable fields, and are now mown, then grazed by sheep, as part of measures to increase the biodiversity of the are. And as further proof, as drove to the field on Sunday evening to hear the Corn Crake, there was also a hobby hunting in the dusk, chasing the swallows and martins that were feeding on the myriad insects that were found there.

DIY Meadows

On a much small scale, I have been managing a two acre field, to try and create a flower rich sward. Less than two years ago, when we moved in the field was completely overgrown and dominated by thistles and nettles, with barely any grass visible, and almost no other flowering plants. The autumn we moved in I had the field mown twice, just before the thistles set seed and soon after, when they had regrown. Grass immediately began to flourish and for the next three months I used a 'spud' to remove as many of the isolated thistles and nettles, and a mower to keep the dense patches under control. By early in the new year, grass was dominating, and we introduced a 'flock' of sheep. Four Shetlands and a Jabob. All small, very hardy breeds. By the end of the winter, they had done a great job and grazed the ground to a close short turf -- in fact we were having to supplement their diet with hay and other feeds. Sheep have little pointed hooves, and some areas of the new meadow became severely poached, and so having made arrangements to rent another field for grazing, we also acquired a llama. The idea was that llamas are much larger, and consume more vegetation, but have padded feet, so weight for weight (or biomass) cause less damage to the turf. And they also have a great advantage over sheep in that they deposit their dung in heaps. Good for the garden and good for nutrient reduction in the meadows.

Reducing Nutrients

One of the key actions needed in creating a flower rich meadow, is reducing the nutrient levels in the soils, otherwise grasses will dominate. There has been a lot of research carried out, and in some cases most of the topsoil has been removed in order to create a flower-rich meadow. It is early day to decide whether or not llama grazing is effective, but it will be interesting to know if any of the people keeping llamas and alpacas (of which there are quite a number in Britain and North America now) have observed any changes in the flora.

Implications for Nature reserves

Many nature reserves, both managed by English Nature, and those managed by RSPB, local Wildlife Trusts and others now have grazing animals as part of their management regime. Usually they use sheep, but Polish Koniik ponies (popularly referred to as Tarpans -- which are actually extinct) and sometimes cattle are used. The problem is, that most of the reserves using animals in this way, are keeping the animals on the pasture permanently, or at least seasonally. In the past this was not the case, animals were usually coralled or 'folded' at night. One of the reasons for this was that the dung was a valuable resource, needed for fertilizing the arable fields. Consequently the fertility of the pasture, common lands etc was gradually reduced. This concept was underpinned in a recent farm tour given on Anne Clifford's family farm (Anne is the WLT Donations Manager). This is an organic farm, and part of the management includes sheep, and one of the functions of the sheep is to produce manure for the arable crops. They are not just for meat and wool production.

Current management regimes do not take all this into account, and therefore using grazing animals on permanent pastures may well be increasing the nutrient levels, and leading to long-term changes in the flora. Consequently, while it may be aesthetically pleasing to have sheep or other animals grazing a nature reserve, it is. Unless they are being rounded up at night, it may be ecologically better to mechanically mow, bale and remove the hay, in order to keep nutrient levels low.

Hope for the future

But whatever is done, it is certainly better than the barren wastelands of agri-business that once dominated the rural landscape. Already change is apparent in East Anglia. Broader margins around fields, and more pasture; and more organic/ conservation grade farming. There are still thousands of sterile acres, but it is getting better. There is hope.

Orchids

Orchids are often seen as the epitome of rare and endangered flora. In the UK they are often used as flagship species to halt development, and there is no doubt of their tremendous appeal, even to the non-naturalists. For the past 10 years or so I have made an annual pilgrimage to an old Suffolk Green to see the green-winged orchids -- a great expanse of purplish-pink orchids with scattered salmon pink and even white individuals. A sight that evokes the flower rich meadows before the advent of the motor car, pesticides and herbicides.

But this year I was stunned to see two amazing other nature reserves, with vast numbers of orchids. One was land surrounding a pair of trout fishing lakes, created by a Suffolk farmer 25 years ago. Here swathes of spotted orchids had colonised, together with bee orchids, on what was once open farmland. The other was a reserve created out of farmland a decade ago by herpetologist Tom Langton. Marsh orchids have spread all around the ponds he dug to encourage crested newts.

These two private nature reserves show very clearly what the individual can do, and really make an impact. Not everyone has several acres, but combined, our gardens add up to thousands of acres. I am lucky enough to have over three acres -- not enough on its own, but managed with the surrounding area in mind, even this size can have a major impact. So far we have only found a handful of bee orchids, but I am hopeful that in years to come others will spread.

Treating Fox mange with mumbo jumbo

A couple of years ago, the Mammal Society, once the leading organisation for the scientific study of mammals in the UK actively promoted the homeopathic treatment of wild mammals. All members of the Society were sent a leaflet advocating using homeopathic doses of arsenic at a dilution of 30c which (according to information on the very informative www.quackwatch.com website) could require several billion litres of water to effect such a dilution.

The Mammal Society claimed that "a few drops of the homeopathic treatment are placed on something sweet, such as a jam sandwich, which is scattered around the garden. A full course of treatment will take around three weeks, although an improvement can usually be seen in a few days." How they know it is the dilute water and not the jam sandwich (or anything else) that effects the cure was not made clear.

The then Chairman of the Mammal Society claimed that "This particular treatment has been tested extensively by the Fox Project and the National Fox Welfare Society and all the data that have been collected show that it works. It certainly seems to be at least as good as Ivermectin, but has none of the associated problems, and is a treatment that can be used by members of the public without the need for veterinarian intervention. So if all the data suggest that it works, I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that people try it if they have no other treatment they can use."

Finding out the basis of these claims is nigh on impossible, and the Mammal Society seemed reluctant to even discuss them, let alone provide data alleged to have been collected. Among the few pieces of quantifiable data available, are the costs recorded on the mange.org.uk web site:
"In the year 2000 the society sent out in excess of £18,295 worth of treatment free of charge. This homeopathic treatment of Arsenicum alb & Sulphur 30c helped over 3,659 foxes. Already in the last six months of 2001 we have sent out in excess of £9,120.00."

When one member of the Mammal Society queried the Society's position, the Chairman (Professor Stephen Harris, of the Department of Zoology, Bristol University) wrote:
"I am inundated with e-mails that waste my time and I had rather viewed the correspondence on mange and homeopathic treatments as falling into that category. Hence I have not exactly rushed to respond to the request for hard data since part of the aim of the current study is to collect just such data." In fact as the earlier quotes demonstrate, Professor Harris is actively supporting this "research", despite the fact that the manner in which the so-called study is being conducted, does not appear to be able to collect any hard data -- only anecdotal information, mostly from untrained sources. It's the sort of 'data' most reputable scientists would run a mile from.

Keeping an open mind is certainly important, but what next? Cynics within the Mammal Society have suggested some possible lines of future research for Professor Harris and his Bristol team. They could investigate the influence of zodiac signs on the breeding cycle of rams (Aires spp.), bulls (Taurus spp) and goats (Capra spp.). They could use dowsing to trace mole runs and other subterranean mammal runs. And Feng Shui might be very helpful as a tool for improving catch rates in mouse traps. Or perhaps Bristol University might carry out a study on food combining as practiced by competing populations of bank voles (Clethrionomys) and wood mice (Apodemus). The possibilities are endless, and have about an equal scientific basis. Most scientists would agree that letting people practice alternative medicine, is a human right akin to the freedom of worship. But like religion, the fact that it has virtually nothing to do with science is self evident. But then some scientists presumably must pray to get the research results they want. Keeping an open mind is one thing, but as it has been said on many occasions, not so open the brain falls out.