Quote:
Originally Posted by ilia123  I was wondering what people thought about Jeremy Biggs' approach to pond making. . |
A very good question which I'm glad you asked. It raises some important issues which are long overdue for an airing on this forum. I discovered his blog recently, and although I don't agree with him in
every detail, in general I think he knows what he's talking about, and his advice is certainly the best I've found on the Web so far.
In general:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilia123 he is highly against
ponds being deeper than 30/40cm, Agree to a large extent, but room for debate.
filled with tap water, Totally agree - this adds nutrients to the water and is the principle cause of algal blooms
adding soil at the bottom, Agreed, this also adds nutrients to the water. However, where black liner is used, I think there is a case for putting a layer of light-coloured material on the bottom to aid observation of wildlife
adding life from other ponds, Debatable
not having enough shallow water (2cm deep to 10cm deep), Totally agree - the greatest biodiversity occurs in water less than 10cm deep and, in a small garden pond, water more than about 80cm deep is, effectively, ecologically sterile and superfluous to requirements
having steep banks, Totally agree
and having rocks Largely agree, particularly with regard to pebble "beaches"
He doesn't like this sort of pond: What not to dig The Garden Pond Blog And neither do I
And has posted his own pond on his blog here: How to make a really good wildlife pond (3): the pictures The Garden Pond Blog Excellent stuff, I wish more people would follow his principles |
In detail:
On the question of depth - Most of the literature I've read recommends a max. depth of 60cm+ for a wildlife pond. This is to ensure that, even in the coldest winter, the water at the bottom of the pond remains unfrozen. This is particularly important if the pond contains fish, or frogs use it to hibernate. Given that really cold winters are probably a thing of the past (last winter's cold spell notwithstanding), and fish aren't particularly desirable in a wildlife pond, I suspect that most people in the UK could get away with less. There is also an issue about oxygenation - ponds absorb oxygen through the surface of water exposed to air. It would seem logical, therefore, that in order to maximise this, the ratio of surface area to volume should be as high as possible, which means "shallow".
On "adding life" - In an ideal world, a wildlife pond would be left to colonise and develop naturally. This can be a slow process, however, and in a garden setting, where there is always a desire for quick results, I see no harm in "kick-starting" the ecosystem by adding sludge from another, well-established, pond;
as long as the source pond is known to be free of disease.
On the question of "rocks", and other hard-landscaping - this is a complex issue which I have very strong opinions about, and I think they're going to upset a few people . Apologies in advance
, but I think certain things need to be said.
It's complex because there are three conflicting interests involved:
aesthetics,
ecology, and
practicality.
Practicality. Every pond - fish, ornamental, or wildlife - should have an area of hard-standing along at least one side. This allows safe, non-slip access to the pond for maintenance and study, and is particularly important if the pond is at least partly intended for educating children. This is a fundamental principle of good pond design, and IMHO, there is no excuse for ignoring it. This is not a justification, however, for completely surrounding the pond with hard-landscaping (rocks, pebbles, slabs, decking - whatever), which brings me to ecology...
Ecology. As far as I'm concerned, the aim of constructing a wildlife pond is to replicate an ecosystem, and maximise the biodiversity supported by a garden. Anything less than this is not a true "wildlife" pond; it is, at best, an "ornamental" pond with some wildlife-friendly features; at worst, just a hole in the ground filled with water.
Given this aim, how do rocks fit in to pond ecology? My answer is: only to a limited extent.
As I understand it, there are very few truly "natural" ponds in lowland Britain. Where they do occur (dune slacks, river beds, ox-bows, etc.) they occur under specific conditions, with specific ecologies, which are very difficult to replicate in a garden.
Most lowland ponds (garden ponds, farm ponds, moats, duck decoys, gravel pits etc.) are man-made, constructed for a whole variety of reasons. Consequently, they are often associated with hard-landscaping of one sort or another, but ponds that are completely enclosed by stone are rare, and occur naturally only in upland areas (again, with specifically upland ecologies).
The best, healthiest, and most diverse lowland ponds will
always have at least one side with shallow, waterlogged margins, supporting a range of emergent and marginal plants, which blend seamlessly into surrounding (dry land) vegetation. As any ecologist knows, these transitional habitats support the most diverse range of wildlife, and in a garden setting, they provide a safe corridor for emerging amphibians to find their way to land.
While hard-landscaping has a place as ornament; in defining edges and providing access; and can enhance a wildlife pond by providing shelter for inverts and amphibs, too much of it is actually hostile to wildlife, and its use should be minimised. This
particularly applies to pebble "beaches", for the following reasons:
1. In nature, pebble beaches are created by moving water, i.e. on coasts or in river beds. Ponds are, by definition, bodies of standing water, where beaches would not naturally occur, and consequently have little to add to pond ecology.
2. If a pebble beach is the only means of egress from the pond available to emerging amphibs, this exposes them, quite unnecessarily, to the risks of predation and dehydration. Rather counter-productive, I would have thought.
3. The rounded, water-worn pebbles used for pond ornamentation are extracted from natural beaches, damaging an endangered habitat and degrading their ecological value. Using them, in my opinion, is as environmentally unsound as using peat.
Aesthetics Ah, aesthetics
A difficult subject
. The aesthetics of pond design are, by definition, subjective, personal, and complex; and, potentially, extremely emotive and contentious.
I don't want to impose my personal aesthetic values on anyone, but I would like to make some observations:
1. A lot of people say they want to make a wildlife pond look "natural", not realising that there is not necessarily anything particularly "natural" about a good wildlife pond, apart from the plants and creatures that inhabit it.
2. A lot of people also, I suspect, look at a conventional “ornamental” garden pond in the spring, note the abundance of frogs, and assume that this is an indication of a well-designed wildlife pond. Unfortunately, frogs are not the most discriminating of creatures, they’ll spawn in almost any hole in the ground filled with water, and their presence does not necessarily indicate the rich and diverse ecology that a well-designed wildlife pond will support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilia123 I suppose it depends on whether one is looking for an aesthetically pleasing pond or a replication of a natural pond. |
Bearing in mind what I say above, I see no conflict here.
Everybody has their own tastes and values, but it must surely be the case that an informed aesthetics will be more productive, and better for the environment, than an uninformed one, which is why I find this (which is a good wildlife pond)
more aesthetically pleasing than this
Home : Our Pond to attract wildlife into the garden.
which, I’m afraid, isn’t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilia123 I will probably go somewhere in the middle. |
There's always room for compromise. Good design is about balancing conflicting interests, and frogs don't read Style Magazines
Hope this helps
T2
Linear Mode
