Stephen Thompson, 2018 Conservation Greenkeeper of the Year and member of Biodiversity Professionals

John o’ Gaunt Golf Club has two 18-hole courses. John o’ Gaunt course is a parkland style course with lots of trees, a brook running through and a newly installed pond. The Carthagena course is on part of the sandstone ridge. It’s much more free draining and has a more heathland feel to it, with gorse in various places, an oak woodland down one side and elm down another.

I have recorded about 100 species of birds including barn owl (Tyto alba), kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus and even a nightjar, as well as more common species such as great spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) and blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus).

Golf course conservation outreach

Over the last two years I have been running a moth trap regularly by the tractor sheds and held several moth evenings with the local moth group. To date, I have now recorded 354 species at the club including the rare white spotted pinion moth (Cosmia diffinis) on the Carthagena course.

A marbled white butterfly (Melanargia galathea).

Mating pair of large red-tailed damselflies (Pyrrhosoma nymphula).

Golf course conservation outreach

Helping wildlife on the golf course

There are several ways I help the wildlife on the course: I have made and installed over 100 bird boxes which I check every spring mostly in my own time and with a ringing permit, ring any chicks I find. I check boxes in the winter and repair and replace where necessary. I have also helped create many wildflower areas providing much needed habitats for bees and other pollinating insects.

Recognized for golf course conservation

I have helped bring much media attention to the club, appearing on BBC TV and local radio. I have helped the club win awards both locally and nationally, and written many articles in national magazines. I have been a finalist four times in a row in the Golf Environments Awards in the category of Conservation Greenkeeper of the Year. This year, I was recognized as Conservation Greenkeeper of the Year. Some golf course owners are less aware of the benefits these green spaces can provide. However, as my work shows, a golf course does not have to be just a golf course. It can also be a conservation boon for wildlife and wildlife advocates.

Resources
Steve on LinkedIn
Steve on Facebook
Steve on Twitter
Steve Thompson, Greenkeeper John O’Gaunt Golf Club – Badger Trust Conference 2016

The post Wildlife conservation outcomes for a golf course in England appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

State Vegetation Type Map for New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The map shows color-coded Plant Community Types (PCTs). Click for the full size image.

To better manage our native vegetation, the New South Wales government is delivering a comprehensive and complete state-wide baseline for the extent and distribution of the different groupings or types of vegetation – the State Vegetation Type Map (SVT Map).

The SVT is based on site surveys, a standard classification system and high resolution spatial representation. With a complete vegetation type map for NSW, for the first time government, business and the community will be able to see what we currently know about the distribution of Plant Community Types for all of NSW. This approach will provide a wide-ranging basis to set conservation priorities instead of just localized and incomplete information.

Plant Community Types (PCTs) are the agreed foundation level for classifying vegetation in NSW and are intended to provide the most ecologically relevant grouping of plant species for a range of purposes not just mapping. For example, site assessments will use this classification unit to describe the vegetation present and compare their current condition with related benchmarks.

Plant communities are complex and dynamic entities that can be challenging to map or even recognize on the ground especially where they have been significantly modified through clearing or logging. Some closely related PCTs can share common species or differ by a particular layer. Boundaries between types are not always distinct. Our understanding of PCTs will continue to change as more site survey data is collected especially in poorly sampled areas.

With the support of the NSW Environmental Trust, a major project was initiated to accelerate the creation of a complete and consistent reference layer for the extent and distribution of the approximately 1300 (PCTs) in NSW–the State Vegetation Type Map.

The State Vegetation Map cannot be expected to be a perfect and timeless representation of the landscape. Rather, it is designed to provide a common basis for vegetation information in NSW that can be readily updated without the need for producing entirely new maps. The underlying skeleton can more easily incorporate new site information and more detailed special-purpose vegetation maps (where compatible) to continuously improve the state wide picture.

For more information about vegetation information please visit our website at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/vegetation/vinfo.htm

Bob Denholm
Senior Team Leader Vegetation Mapping
Native Vegetation Information Science Branch
Science Division
Office of Environment and Heritage

The post State Vegetation Type Map for NSW Australia appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

This article serves to introduce biodiversity professionals to contemporary environmental philosophy. It is a discipline that could play an important role in (re)shaping the objectives conservation organisations set for themselves. It deals with complex questions that cannot be disregarded if we aim for conservation to stand the test of time.

Lessons from history

Nature conservation in any of its forms can only be effective if there is consensus on what nature is, and how we want to conserve it. This seems no difficult job: most people we know would associate ‘true’ nature with concepts such as ‘pristine land’, ‘undisturbed areas’ or ‘wilderness’.

Similarly, the important Wilderness Act of 1964 (USA) considers wilderness ‘untrammelled by man’ and ‘where man is a visitor who does not remain’. Although such definitions speak to the imagination of lovers of nature, many critics now agree that they are ethnocentric. What was defined as ‘untrammelled by man’ in North America, had long been home to millions of indigenous North Americans. By excluding them from the definition applied to these lands, the removal of Native Americans from their homelands was further facilitated.

This might seem a merely historical argument, but unfortunately it is still relevant: practices like these continued, sad examples being the nomadic Penans in Malaysia and the African Masai tribes. It is highly ironic how some large Western conservation organisations fail to put a stop to the destruction of the remnants of biodiversity hotspots in industrialised Europe, but sometimes accuse various ‘primitive’ populations of being a threat to an endangered species in Third World countries. Fortunately, many other organisations have realised the importance of striking a balance between nature conservation and the rights of indigenous people.

Contemporary problems related to the definition of nature

Wilderness paradoxes still occur to this day. For example: conservation organisations often clear woodland, in order to restore the land to its ‘original state’. For example, in Belgium and the Netherlands, these are often heathland restoration projects. But what exactly is the ‘original state’ of the land? Heathland used to be abundant exactly because of the clearing of woodland in order to make room for agriculture. Thus, heathland is by definition nothing like wilderness. Many would rightly argue that making room for both woodlands and heathland benefits biodiversity. However, do we want to pursue higher biodiversity if it is not strictly natural?

Surely, we rather not have ourselves to be the ‘architects of nature’, establishing nature in a way linked to the highest possible biodiversity. Is leaving natural succession to swallow up a large number of heathlands a good alternative then? Only because that is how it would be without human intervention, we would risk the loss of species typical of these biotopes. This does not seem like a good idea either.Important as the concept is, we have to avoid biodiversity to become a dogma of nature conservation. It is not up to us to protect or restore the biodiversity of nature no matter what. It is up to us to prohibit or reverse excessive human impact upon nature: human impact that is often accompanied by the decline of biodiversity.

Reversing our past impacts on nature?

But even if we agree that we ought to reverse human impact, the question rises to what extent we should. Do we try to reverse the huge changes we have forced upon the land since the industrial evolution? Or do we go further back, and try to restore nature to the way it was before agriculture was widespread? This choice could imply the sacrifice of large areas of biodiverse heathland to natural succession. One might even argue that we should support the development of ‘de-extinction’ technologies? After all, animals like the woolly mammoth and sabre-toothed cats might have gone extinct due to human hunting activities.

This is one of only many difficult questions investigated in the field of environmental philosophy. It handles questions that can be complex and often have no unambiguous answer. Still, the ways in which we answer them shapes the practice of nature conservation.

–Merijn van den Bosch

Sources

Much of the content of ‘Lessons from history’ is found in:
-Callicott, J.B and Nelson, M.P., The Great New Wilderness Debate. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1998, 697 p.
-Callicott, J.B and Nelson, M.P., The Wilderness Debate Rages On. Continuing the Great New Wilderness Debate. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2008, 723 p.

The post How our definition of nature shapes conservation efforts appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Lake Bohinj, Triglav National Park, Slovenia. (Photo by David Matthews)

However, despite the apparent optimism, the application of DNA technologies to address environmental challenges does not seem to have fully realized its potential to date.

Having developed a particular interest in this area through my involvement in ecological consulting, I have made this topic the focus of a short research project as part of an MSc in Environmental Management. The project hypothesis is that there are barriers to the adoption of DNA technologies that are delaying or preventing deployment. The research questions that the project is seeking to address include:

• What opportunities exist for the application of DNA-based technologies to biodiversity assessment, for environmental protection, decision-making and conservation?
• What barriers exist to the adoption of DNA technologies in biodiversity assessment, for environmental protection?

The research project is using a number of approaches to investigate these questions further, including semi-structured interviews, further literature analysis, and the completion of a short on-line survey. This survey can be found at: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/DNA_Applications

I would welcome your input. The survey should take no more than 10 minutes to complete, and I would be happy to share the findings.

The post Can advances in DNA technologies provide solutions for biodiversity assessment, conservation and environmental protection? appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Megastigmus schimitscheki, a type of cedar wasp, is considered to be an invasive species in southern France. (See Fabre JP, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Chalon A, Boivin S, Roques A. 2004. Competition between exotic and native insects for seed resources in trees of a Mediterranean forest ecosystem. Biological Invasions 6:11‒22. Photo courtesy of Thomas Boivin.)

Invasive species project: first phase goals

During the first phase of the project, we are gathering opinions via an online survey on the global and local issues that might affect the management of biological invasions in the next 20 to 50 years. We want to explore issues that may emerge and have implications in a more distant future than currently considered in the management of biological invasions. These can be issues which might have positive or negative implications.

Invasive species project: survey goals

We invite people working with or interested in biological invasions to fill in the survey on our website: www.alienfutures.org.

Click to take the invasive species survey

The survey is also available in French and Spanish on that page. We encourage people to think creatively beyond the time frame of their current work. All of the issues identified will be published online on the project webpage. Project outputs will include a long list of global issues, a long list of local issues and a shortlist of global issues. We will make the data available for use and further research, with workshops planned to explore the implications of these issues for policy and management.

Please share the invasive species project survey

We would like to distribute the survey as widely as possible and ask people to share it within their networks. Please contact us at info@alienfutures.org if you want an email draft (available in English, French and Spanish).

Follow the invasive species project

You can follow the progress of the project on the website www.alienfutures.org or Twitter at @alienfutures. You can search or follow using the hashtag #alienfutures.

The post Horizon scanning for future issues affecting invasive species management: call for participants appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.

Introduced mallard ducks (left) regularly mate with native grey ducks (right) in New Zealand. Males of either species often opt to mate with females of the other species. Is this mutual appreciation for the exotic wayward, or do they have something to teach us? (Images courtesy of Wikipedia Creative Commons)

Many of us have built entire careers out of identifying which introduced species inconvenience natives. We explore and quantify their effects, and then crow about how important it is to rid ourselves of these ‘invasive’ nuisances.

So, for some, it is with considerable trepidation that they witness this complacent formula starting to unravel in recent years. Study after study, across discipline after discipline, is showing that introduced species are not, and never were, as bad as we thought.

An aging rear guard has devoted itself to the defense of old-school nativism, with all its irregularities, quirks and eccentricities. But many of us can now see that that ship was flawed all along and is now best abandoned.

Let’s learn to live with introduced species, not because it’s a novel or contrarian view, but because it has become the most compelling and sane thing to do.

Reasons to appreciate introduced species

Here are five good reasons why:

1. More diversity. In general, introduced species increase local and regional species richness. Most islands, for example, have doubled their lists of plant species through introductions. Longstanding nightmares of ecosystems dominated by single species, while common in agricultural landscapes, are the exception in the wild. Let’s stop talking about species like kudzu as if they were representative.
2. More uniqueness. A fixation on species-level biodiversity has fostered the impression that we are losing uniqueness. This assumption is flawed. While species have gone extinct (sometimes due, in part, to introduced species), our ecosystems are every bit as unique as they always were. Native ecosystems are unique, but so too are novel ecosystems, comprising biota that have never lived in the same configurations in history.
3. More evolution. Change is continuous and countless recent studies investigating rates of evolution show that it happens a lot faster than we used to think. Both native and introduced species don’t care about our historical baselines and are actively breeding and (de)selecting themselves away from them. Much like technological innovation in times of crisis, evolution seems to be speeding up in response to the environmental changes we have wrought. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this is a good thing and that trying to stop it might actually be damaging to the vitality of future ecosystems.
4. More nature. We ask people to explore and cherish nature, but so much of the nature they experience around them is the ‘wrong’ kind. Introduced genes, species, and ecosystems are everywhere, permeating everything.
   The search for purity is more than an embarrassment now. We risk disenfranchising a whole generation of people by constantly pointing to the belief that real nature is always somewhere else.
5. More compassion. Over the last few decades, people have blamed introduced species for just about every environmental malady you could think of. We have been told (and told ourselves) that they are the perpetrators of undesirable processes and states again and again.

The truth is that introduced species are as much the victims of globalisation as native species, having little choice over their location, and no choice over their valuation, but having to suffer the consequences all the same. Scapegoating introduced species is a tired, unethical pastime.

For a more detailed examination of the arguments raised in this article consider reading my recently completed PhD thesis: The Reconciliation of Introduced Species in New Zealand.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

The post 5 Reasons To Love Introduced Species appeared first on Biodiversity Professionals.