A County Atlas project is a very good
way of generating local interest in any group of organisms,
especially if there is an active group and a dyamic organiser. To my
mind, the best model is that of the Surrey Wildlife Trust's County
Atlases, which now form quite a remarkable canon of work. As a result, Surrey
is probably the best documented county for its invertebrate fauna. A
lot of credit should go to Martin Newman, the Chief Executive of the
Trust who was responsible for turning into reality the basic model
suggested by yours-truly and Graham Collins over lunch one day in
Pirbright in spring 1994 (I think).
This series of books has far-surpassed
what I think any of us foresaw at the time. I hoped that we might
manage to publish the work of several active recorders at the time –
David Baldock, Roger Hawkins, Graham Collins and me. But, twenty
years later the range of titles far exceeds the original aspirations
of Butterflies, Moths, Dragonflies, Hoverflies, Shieldbugs and
Orthoptera. There has even been a second edition of Butterflies that
provides a chilling oversight of the decline of some of the county's
iconic species. These are lasting records that form an important
baseline for future generations upon which to base analysis of newer
data.
I always hoped that Surrey would be in
the vanguard and that its series would stimulate other counties to do
something similar. There have been occasional volumes for a few
groups in other counties, but to the best of my knowledge no other
County Trust has attempted anything on the same scale; yet we have
shown that it can be done!
How is it done?
In short, hard work! But the scale of
the job depends upon the numbers of recorders. For some insect groups
there should be no problem generating sufficient records. There are
often good numbers of capable butterfly and dragonfly enthusiasts.
Things become a little more difficult to achieve good coverage of
moths but, again, there are far more people running moth traps that
in the 1980s and 1990s. In theory, the same applies for hoverflies:
the numbers of active recorders have grown substantially, but here we
see that the available capacity is thinly spread. I dare say a
similar situation obtains for bumblebees and some other Hymenoptera.
So, for these groups, why not give it a go? Equally, there may be
other relatively popular families – Longhorn Beetles, for example.
When Graham and I started on our
atlases we set out to cover Surrey at 5km resolution, but over time
that refined to tetrad level, which I think is about right. Any
coarser resolution makes it difficult to relate species' distribution
to solid and drift geology, or to urbanisation. Each weekend, in
suitable weather, we would choose an area of Surrey and visit as many
squares as possible, often stopping for just sufficient time to
achieve the '80%' rule. In other words, you generally assemble 80% of
the list relatively quickly, but can spend innumerable hours adding
the occasional additional species. That is not terribly efficient,
and so it is best to move on and cover several more squares and in
doing so you increase the overall species list but make sure that
those that are abundant on the day are recorded at the majority of
sites. Repeat visits help to fill in the gaps and can be targetted to
fill in obvious shortfalls. As I recall, it took about 10 years
before we were convinced we had adequate data to produce an atlas. I would guess that about 75% of the data for hoverflies was generated by Graham and me.
Dissemination
When we were active in Surrey, it was
much more difficult to distribute provisional maps. Now it can be
done electronically and pdfs can be made available quite readily.
Once working maps are distributed, people are often encouraged to
fill in the gaps in their area. So, the obvious lesson is to produce
a set of working maps and make them available to anyone who is
interested.
Most people will not travel very far
from home, but if they can be encouraged to fill in the squares in a
radius of 5km from home you will soon start to see the benefits of
developing a network. Then it is up to the project organiser to visit
under-recorded areas and fill in the gaps. I used to check out
particular geological formations to look for species that I suspected
might be found. Obviously, a different assemblage is likely to be
found in different situations, but there will also be surprises, so
one should not be too presumptive about what might turn up. I also
found that when certain species turned up, it was worth visiting
similar habitats across the county over the next couple of days, as
some species are very short-lived. This seemed to be the case with
Brachyopa and with Myolepta
as well as some Cheilosia.
Publication
The
Surrey Atlas Project was structured to attract sponsorship for the
first couple of titles, after which we were able to use income from
preceding titles to fund later ones. Our design was pretty up-market,
but simple soft covers using 'print on demand' models could be a lot
cheaper and easier to update. One can design to fit the budget. It
striikes me that maybe today there could be support from sources such
as Lottery and Aggregates Levy funds. The important point about this
part of the project is to try to do a bit more than just a set of
maps. Interpretation is the critical issue. For younger readers,
this part of the job is a great way of improving your ability as an
ecologist if you have aspirations for a career in conservation and
ecology.
Marketing
My big
regret about the Surrey Atalas series is that we did not have numbers
on the spine. I did suggest this but it was not pursued. Had we had
numbers I feel sure there would have been more sales as the series
gained popularity and people started to collect the books. In this
respect, I think it is important to remember that printing is
expensive and that unit costs can be reduced by increasing the volume
sold. But, if you print more you must sell more – storage is
expensive and it is dead money, so the length of the print run is
always a balancing act and marketing techniques are essential to make the project viable.
No comments:
Post a Comment