To conserve or not to conserve...?

[tufftie]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this one but wild places seemed to be specific reserves etc so?!

I posed this question a few years or so back on a uni forum and it got some interesting replies!

Should we conserve habitats or not, should we just let them revert to whatever they would naturally become (mainly woodland in the UK)? Personally I'm on the fence for this one as there are some pretty strong arguments on either side. I've spent years with BTCV, RSPB etc doing voluntary work preserving habitats so this may seem a strange question but...!

I'm not referring to housing etc here, that's another evil altogether!

[mh68]

If its conserved to aid a threatened species, then yes, of course. In other cases its not so clear cut. Why not start the ball rolling and post a few of the points raised when you posted the topic originally, it may provide a springboard for people to add their own thoughts?

Mark H

[tufftie]

Originally Posted by mh68

If its conserved to aid a threatened species, then yes, of course. In other cases its not so clear cut. Why not start the ball rolling and post a few of the points raised when you posted the topic originally, it may provide a springboard for people to add their own thoughts?

Mark H

Habitat management to conserve threatened species is why i'm on the fence - I'm all for that too!

Pointers - wow there were quite a lot of them!
Yours one was one of the main ones.
One of the reasons not too conserve was because for the most part we'd get woodland and this would be beneficial in light of our habits accelerating global warming.
There were various arguments about the variety of species balanced against the number of species we would get.

There were lots more i'll have to find what i did with the key to my brain archive!

[mh68]

Originally Posted by tufftie

Habitat management to conserve threatened species is why i'm on the fence - I'm all for that too!

Pointers - wow there were quite a lot of them!
Yours one was one of the main ones.
One of the reasons not too conserve was because for the most part we'd get woodland and this would be beneficial in light of our habits accelerating global warming.
There were various arguments about the variety of species balanced against the number of species we would get.

There were lots more i'll have to find what i did with the key to my brain archive!

Yes, things are never clear cut. Its all area and species specific,and the way this country is going, either preservation or allowing new habitats to generate is going to get harder and harder.

Mark H

[Kerry]

I would say that it depended on the area and what species are there. On part of my land I have left nature to regenerate and species such as sloe and willow have quickly taken over, with lots of undergrowth of bramble providing ideal nesting conditions in an area where there is little in the way of shelter for ground nesting birds. I have also had lots of different wild flowers springing up where prior they would never have had a chance due to grazing. Obviously plants that like short grass have gone but there is so much short grass around that it is no loss. Just taking grazing animals off the area has produced a habitat rich in plants, shelter, insects, birds and mammals. Spiders seem to especially love the area as it is always bathed in cobwebs. Since permitting this area to flourish I have seen a marked increase in the number of blue tits and great tits that come to feed from my bird feeders. I think that over zealous conserving is actually detrimental and have witnessed this in woodland where habitat has been lost due to the obsession of interferring in nature. Nature managed before we arrrived and I am sure it will once we are gone. Also when you look at evolution species come and go and then others take their place. I know that we have greatly accelerated that process but I feel that we are never going to stop it happening unless we have a massive change in our outlook and that is something that most humans are just not going to do.

[tufftie]

Originally Posted by Kerry

I would say that it depended on the area and what species are there. On part of my land I have left nature to regenerate and species such as sloe and willow have quickly taken over, with lots of undergrowth of bramble providing ideal nesting conditions in an area where there is little in the way of shelter for ground nesting birds. I have also had lots of different wild flowers springing up where prior they would never have had a chance due to grazing. Obviously plants that like short grass have gone but there is so much short grass around that it is no loss. Just taking grazing animals off the area has produced a habitat rich in plants, shelter, insects, birds and mammals. Spiders seem to especially love the area as it is always bathed in cobwebs. Since permitting this area to flourish I have seen a marked increase in the number of blue tits and great tits that come to feed from my bird feeders. I think that over zealous conserving is actually detrimental and have witnessed this in woodland where habitat has been lost due to the obsession of interferring in nature. Nature managed before we arrrived and I am sure it will once we are gone. Also when you look at evolution species come and go and then others take their place. I know that we have greatly accelerated that process but I feel that we are never going to stop it happening unless we have a massive change in our outlook and that is something that most humans are just not going to do.

You sound like you have a lovely place!

[paulchandler6]

I suppose it depends what you want. You can manage a habitat for a specific species or you can manage it for diversity of species.
If habitats were left to climax then the diversity of species would dissapear but climax woodland would help absorb CO2.
I guess we need to try and maintain a balance.

Paul

[Kerry]

Originally Posted by paulchandler6

I suppose it depends what you want. You can manage a habitat for a specific species or you can manage it for diversity of species.
If habitats were left to climax then the diversity of species would dissapear but climax woodland would help absorb CO2.
I guess we need to try and maintain a balance.

Paul

But once you have climax woodland you then move onto decay which provides habitat for insects, fungi and tree dwelling birds and it is all part of natures process. I don't feel that we can improve on nature in the long term.

[aeshna5]

I think we have to manage some habitats such as heathland + grasslands or we will lose them + the specialist species that need them.

However I'm also a fan of wildings projects such as currently being done in the Netherlands where nature looks after it self, though they have introduced some large herbivores such as ancestral type cattle + ponies. I guess the problem in the UK is that we are a tiny overpopulated island which makes such large landscape projects more difficult.

[Putnamsmif]

I think it depends on how far back in time you want our landscape to be conserved as. There are several types of habitat such as heathland which exist because of ancient mans clearing of the land. If we left it to nature this would eventually disappear and revert to what it was like before we left our hunter-gathering ancestors behind and started farming. So where do you draw the line? There are now thousands of species of plant, insect, animal and bird-life that live a very specialised existence in such areas which are "managed" by man. So by stopping managing them, you would expect some of these species to suffer, perhaps even to the point of extinction? There's surely only one sensible answer to this question and it's both yes and no. There should be some areas that are left to revert to whatever they revert to, and there should be others which should continue to be managed to the benefit of the species that currently exist there.

[ron1863]

Originally Posted by Putnamsmif

I think it depends on how far back in time you want our landscape to be conserved as. There are several types of habitat such as heathland which exist because of ancient mans clearing of the land. If we left it to nature this would eventually disappear and revert to what it was like before we left our hunter-gathering ancestors behind and started farming. So where do you draw the line? There are now thousands of species of plant, insect, animal and bird-life that live a very specialised existence in such areas which are "managed" by man. So by stopping managing them, you would expect some of these species to suffer, perhaps even to the point of extinction? There's surely only one sensible answer to this question and it's both yes and no. There should be some areas that are left to revert to whatever they revert to, and there should be others which should continue to be managed to the benefit of the species that currently exist there.

Ditto. Excellent reply

[C C]

I believe we should conserve. But where do we draw the line. Targeting an habitat for a certain species, could push other vunarable species out. At the same time open the door for other species to move in, it is a tricky one to say the least.

An example: An area near me..target species Marsh Fritillary, all management is based around this Butterfly. Although, there are on average 36 Ukbap species, and a lot more Lbap species, that are resident or frequent the site. These have been given the back seat. The management of site, will benifit some of these other species. At the same time it would be detrimental for others.

[tristanba]

Originally Posted by C C

An example: An area near me..target species Marsh Fritillary, all management is based around this Butterfly. Although, there are on average 36 Ukbap species, and a lot more Lbap species, that are resident or frequent the site. These have been given the back seat. The management of site, will benifit some of these other species. At the same time it would be detrimental for others.

It's likely that the Marsh Fritillary will have the most complex ecological requirements of any species at the site, since it is exceedingly fussy and exploits habitats which are often transient unless they are managed. Even then, species loss may still occur. In a traditional landscape, patches of this habitat type would be constantly present, safeguarding the species on a local scale, but this is no longer the case in the wider countryside which is intensively farmed for the most part.

The Marsh Frit would probably be the first to suffer if a more generalist management approach were taken, hence it makes sense in this instance to give it priority.

[C C]

Originally Posted by tristanba

It's likely that the Marsh Fritillary will have the most complex ecological requirements of any species at the site, since it is exceedingly fussy and exploits habitats which are often transient unless they are managed. Even then, species loss may still occur. In a traditional landscape, patches of this habitat type would be constantly present, safeguarding the species on a local scale, but this is no longer the case in the wider countryside which is intensively farmed for the most part.

The Marsh Frit would probably be the first to suffer if a more generalist management approach were taken, hence it makes sense in this instance to give it priority.

I agree, though there are one or two others that are as vunerable on the site

I have monitored the site for 14 years. The site was doing fine, untill they started full management for the species. One site further up the road, through management, have lost the species.

[Putnamsmif]

Targeting a particular species specifically is an interesting one. In the case of the Marsh Fritillary I am completely ignorant I have to say. I agree that some species do need specific conservation efforts, but I don't agree that it should be to the detriment of other species. As I said I don't know a lot about Marsh Fritillarys, and I'm not suggesting that what I'm about to say applies to them or to any species, and I want to make it clear that it's not neccesarily what I believe but I was reading something a while ago that was in essence saying there are some species we should abandon to extinction. It was arguing that the amount of money spent conserving some species which are basically doomed could be better spent on other species that are still eminently saveable. If I remember rightly it mentioned the Giant Panda, and was saying that the evolutionary back-water they have gone up means they will be impossible to save. The millions that have gone into saving them has therefore been wasted, that was the gist of the argument anyway. I'd like to point out again that this is not neccesarily my point of view!

[tristanba]

Originally Posted by Putnamsmif

As I said I don't know a lot about Marsh Fritillarys, and I'm not suggesting that what I'm about to say applies to them or to any species, and I want to make it clear that it's not neccesarily what I believe but I was reading something a while ago that was in essence saying there are some species we should abandon to extinction. It was arguing that the amount of money spent conserving some species which are basically doomed could be better spent on other species that are still eminently saveable.

It's now sometimes argued that once a population falls below a threshold level, it is not sustainable long term and is doomed to go extinct regardless of conservation effort. This has in fact been demonstrated theoretically for small and isolated metapopulations (sub-populations) of the Marsh Fritillary. How much these population models resemble ecological reality is of course open to question.

[paulchandler6]

Originally Posted by C C

I believe we should conserve. But where do we draw the line. Targeting an habitat for a certain species, could push other vunarable species out.

A very good point raised there. A well known reserve in Oxon had the same thing happen. Another well known organisation cleared an area of scrub and bushes etc for a plant species (sorry cant recall what) and has totally lost a breeding area for Nightingales which have not been seen or heard there since.

Paul

[C C]

Originally Posted by C C

I agree, though there are one or two others that are as vunerable on the site

I have monitored the site for 14 years. The site was doing fine, untill they started full management for the species. One site further up the road, through management, have lost the species.

Need to edit this one.sholud have been

Also i should have said, The site was doing fine, until they started recommended management for the species. Sorry.

[C C]

Originally Posted by paulchandler6

A very good point raised there. A well known reserve in Oxon had the same thing happen. Another well known organisation cleared an area of scrub and bushes etc for a plant species (sorry cant recall what) and has totally lost a breeding area for Nightingales which have not been seen or heard there since.

Paul

Its a shame when this happens.


I am not knocking those that put hard work into conservation of species/habitats. There are many orgs/individuals, that do a sterling job. But i think we can get a little over zealous. Taking on "management" when it is not needed. And in some cases over doing a job.

[tristanba]

Originally Posted by C C

I am not knocking those that put hard work into conservation of species/habitats. There are many orgs/individuals, that do a sterling job. But i think we can get a little over zealous. Taking on "management" when it is not needed. And in some cases over doing a job.

I agree, and can think of numerous instances where bad management work has taken place, sometimes even resulting in the loss of target species. These failures are rarely acknowledged and there is seldom any accountability for those responsible. Moreover, if environmental stewardship schemes have been involved, considerable amounts of public money may be wasted.

[Adam Cheeseman]

In our Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) the majority of Species Action Plans (SAPs) are being dropped in favour of species statements that are included as key indicators species in the appropriate Habitat Action Plan (HAP). That is to say that though a species is highlighted as being important in connection with a habitat, there is not neccessarily any direct management of/for that species any more. It's a question of gaining the optimum condition and area coverage of a variety of habitats as a priority, with the effect of it being beneficial to those species associated with it. I appreciate some species need more help than others.

Then you have the rather large spanner of what are habitats going to be 'naturally' like once climate change has taken its effect..........

Personally, I would rather conserve our habitats than not. Don't forget that in some situations non-intervention is a habitat management conservation strategy.

Cheers,

Adam

[Buzzy]

There is management, and management.
If anything is properly managed all aspects are talked about by all necessary departments and the best conclusion reached at the end. Discussions can be lengthy and laborious, but none the less vital if we are to get the balance right. However this world came about, it is a very complex one and we can only help to keep it going for as long as possible if we think before acting
Buzz.

[Chiltern Chris]

Irrespective of what you decide you need to conserve on a site or our knowledge to be able to do it correctly, are the objectives of the organisation doing the conserving and the pressures we put on them e.g. RSPB, Wildlife Trust or local council.

I think that the RSPB do a fantastic job up and down the country but I’ve been involved with RSPB sites where the tendency has been to skew the management towards bird farming i.e. maximising the numbers of a certain bird species on a site at the expense of other species. This is particularly apparent when deciding on the grazing regimes e.g. some waders require a heavily grazed sward compared to Water Voles and many rare invertebrates which like lots of vegetation and overgrown ditches. Similarly, local councils are under pressure to make every bit of open space completely accessible often to the detriment of the wildlife.

This comes about because one of the problems in conservation is that the land and finances (especially for long term management) available are on such a small scale i.e. individual sites, that we have to have multiple species objectives on each site, rather than having a good habitat mosaic throughout the whole landscape which are connected by wildlife corridors.

Until we get a landuse system which allows a large and dynamic mosaic of habitats to survive, we’ll always be discussing how best to micro-manage the few sites we do have with species winners and losers depending on our perceived priorities at the time.

When, I started in conservation it was all about site acquisition and nature reserve management (which is still very necessary). However the emphasis of many organisations is now shifting to landscape scale initiatives based on the good habitats we have left. This is so that there is a large enough wildlife resource and spread of habitats that even with climate change, coastal squeeze and urbanisation, that there will still be a place for most native species, even if it isn’t where it is at the moment. This also means that in times of adversity it can move to a more suitable area. This is both more robust in the long term and gets away from the situation of valiantly protecting and managing individual, fragile biologically rich ‘islands’ which are surrounded by incompatible land-uses.

PS talking of conservation mism