Biological recording - an issue of administration

In recent years there have been several initiatives to improve levels of biological recording. The most prominent was the establishment of the NBN Gateway as well as that of iSpot and the OPAL project that gave grant-aid to improve skills and data flow. In the case of the Hoverfly Recording Scheme, we were greatly helped by grants to buy a projection microscope and 13 teaching microscopes, and to produce teaching literature. We also benefited from a grant from Natural England to buy a computer and projector. In the case of the HRS this grant-aid has been put to good use and we have run well in excess of 50 courses and engaged with over 400 prospective recorders. It has been achieved through the activity of two recording scheme organisers but has depended upon a network of local organisers.

The results are difficult to correlate with increased recorder effort, but in four areas there have been very tangible benefits: Devon, Glasgow, Norfolk and Northamptonshire. In these places there has been a definite upsurge in effort. Why should this be? The answer is simple: in addition to our provision of teaching, there were local people whose interests have meant that they have become leaders - the very necessary glue that holds a group together and makes things happen.

Over the same time, there have been a number of further innovations. Social networking media have become more universally accepted, even by an older generation, and on-line data entry has become more practical. Some recording schemes and organisations have their own systems (e.g. Bird Track) but there is also iRecord. These relatively simple systems (not necessarily in programming technology) encourage data submission by some people. Indeed, Bird Track has even persuaded me to monitor my local ponds and to regularly enter data on their inhabitants.

Superficially at least, biological recording is making considerable headway. Basic metrics concerning the numbers of records submitted or numbers of contributors are powerful political allies that show how biological recording is an active expression of 'the Big Society' at work. In terms of the HRS, the biggest metrics are headline figures about a significant rise in the numbers of records submitted in 2014 - the highest ever and about 30% more than the long-term average.

Beneath the headline figures, there are issues that are very often overlooked and might fall into the 'I do not recognise' bracket if placed before politicians and some senior management. After all, increasing biological recording is simply a question of getting more people out and about, and getting the Recording Schemes to engage with them to verify records. Is that so? In reality, I hear from recorders who complain about lack of verification of their records on iRecord, who find the Record Cleaner responses frustrating and who are amazed to find that their records have not passed between the Local Records Centre and the NBN (at this point I should say that the HRS and DF are working to place updates of data on the NBN).

These various gripes draw attention to the big issue in biological recording that has yet to be recognised or addressed. Records do not simply magic their way from a recorder to the NBN, Recording Scheme or Local Records Centre. There is a very necessary administrative structure; some paid, some voluntary. The professional element can be quantified - staffing costs, staff time, office costs etc. The voluntary organisational component is less obvious but is equally important. It too draws on staff time but because it is voluntary the costs and implications of increasing effort are not obvious. Cutting the professional component will not necessarily mean that the voluntary component will either take over or carry on as normal.

One of the biggest issues I have always felt was: if there is to be a push for more biological recording, where is the taxonomic expertise coming from? Who is going to do the local motivation and organisation? And, why are they going to do it? True, some will get involved because they see biological recording as an essential part of cataloging and conserving wildlife. But, this begs an important question: if you are interested in a particular specialist group of organisms, is your interest in the organisms or in the organisation needed to record them?

These questions highlight a developing issue. Although one can fairly rapidly lay out the base of a pyramid, it takes years to develop the superstructure. True, modern data management systems may help to resolve simple issues and some technical issues such as incorrect grid references, but there is still a need for a human being to take decisions and to provide technical input. Web-based systems such as iRecord and Bird Track need a direct human interface to verify the data and to provide some interpretation. Bird Track is a BTO initiative - the BTO benefits from a professional superstructure, part funded by membership, partly by consultancy services and partly by statutory agency/government funding. iRecord is linked to the Biological Records Centre at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Again, funded and staffed with a professional community.

In the case of iRecord, I understand that verification of data is largely undertaken by volunteers - Recording Scheme organisers or local specialists. This verification process is largely dependent upon whether a scheme organiser is willing to undertake the task. Some have signed up to the role; others have not. Feedback from some users expresses frustration that their records have not been verified: in other words there is a willingness to submit records but there is a lack of capacity to verify the records. I certainly know of Recording Scheme organisers who would be very unwilling to verify records based on photos, or from people who are unknown quantities.

Verification is a complex process and is dependent upon trust - big blocks of data from established and reliable recorders are relatively easy to deal with. Small blocks of data from unknown quantities and from relative novices are more intimidating. The role of a Recording Scheme organiser is varied: data verification is part of the job, but then so is motivating recorders, answering queries, checking specimens and, perhaps most importantly providing feedback. Schemes that act as a black hole are rarely very dynamic and don't attract interest from any but the most committed.

Recording Scheme organisers are therefore an essential public interface. In many cases they were recruited (or set up schemes) before crowd-sourced data and 24-hour contact. In essence they were interested in the organisms concerned and focussed their energy on gathering data that improved knowledge about the animals or plants concerned. Some will have been working towards the production of an atlas or revisions of keys. Few would have anticipated the modern role of teacher, motivator, data handler and media manager. Some have adapted, whilst others have not. Most importantly, the question arises: who is going to replace the current cohort?

This is arguably the next big question to be resolved. It is all very well growing the numbers of records, but there is a danger that in developing a huge biological recording effort, the strains placed on the organisation superstructure will be such that nobody will be available to carry through a smooth transition from one generation to the next. Growing a new generation of 'administrators' is therefore essential.

This morning, it struck me that the HRS had grown substantially in terms of administrators - it is no longer just me and Stuart Ball. The UK Hoverflies Facebook page could not function without three additional technically competent members who regularly engage to help with identifications. Also, the site was set up by another member who is far more competent than me in these things. Two people are now administrators of the site together with three of the four technical specialists. All of a sudden, the vast rise in hoverfly recording activity is put into perspective - running the scheme is not down to Stuart and me, but involves the combined contributions of seven people. Likewise, the increased activity in Devon, Glasgow, Norfolk and Northamptonshire reflects the presence of local leadership structures.

Leadership at all levels is surely the issue that has to be resolved if biological recording is to fulfill the aspirations of conservation agencies, NGOs and Government? Some bigger societies have possibly got this in place already. BSBI arguably has a network of local recorders that cannot be matched by many other taxonomic groupings apart from birds and mammals. There was an initiative to improve moth recording, but I believe that funding for this has either diminished or ceased. Dragonfly recording is doubtless much better structured than recording of other taxa. In reality, recording of many more challenging taxa will always be dependent on a small number of people both in administration and in field work.

Growing these elements is therefore a matter not only of growing grass roots interest, it must be accompanied by growing the administrative superstructure that is essential if recorders are to feel valued and that somebody is taking an interest in their contributions. Without this input, there is a real danger that grass roots expectations will be frustrated and there will be finite limits to what can be done. A rise in the numbers of records and in recorder numbers should therefore be seen as a positive first step but the job is not over - it has just begun. The next step is to develop the a wider network of shakers and movers: that is a much slower process.

A need for a long-term photographic archive

The quality of modern digital photography is amazing. One has only to turn to Flickr wildlife pools to see a fantastic array of shots. Obviously a good many are of regularly photographed subjects but amongst them there are absolute gems. In the case of hoverflies, I have spent the last 6 years investigating photographic records and have built up a substantial database of URLS that effectively form records. Some of these shots will be available for the foreseeable future but if they reside on Flickr Pro their future is less certain because they will not be hosted when the photographer stops paying for the web hosting facility.

This raises the tricky question of what happens to photos after one's inevitable demise? A collection of insects can be donated to a museum (well, maybe a few can), but what about one's photographic archive? In the case of insect photos, we might well want such an archive and retrieval service. Steve Falk's Flickr pages are an invaluable identification aid and his photos have been immensely important in the Hoverfly WILDGuide. So too has the work of several other excellent photographers. I would be very sad if these fantastic resources were not 'saved for the nation'. After all, in many cases they are not only fantastic wildlife shots but also works of art.

It seems to me that there is a need to tackle the question of a national photo archive - is it not time that one was created? Preserving photos for posterity also provides a way of storing photographic vouchers and also establishes a huge educational resource. It seems to me that there is a need for the biological recording community to look at this issue and to consider the establishment of such an archive. It is a pretty novel scenario, so I imagine it could be put together as an HLF bid as a follow-up to other 'citizen science' initiatives.

I suspect that archive facilities would attract huge support from photographers. In many cases there will be photos that might be identified in the future, so this could be a form of record storage in the same way that museums store large volumes of unidentified material that may at some stage help to answer a critical question. Who should be encouraged to pick up the baton and provide a lead?

Insect collection - a philosophical question

Comments on a recent post in the UK Hoverflies Facebook page raise some important questions about the practice of retaining specimens. I hope the following will help to set some perspective.

The dataset held by the HRS comprises a mixture of field observations and preserved specimens. There would be very few records prior to 1976 without the collections of long-dead entomologists. Indeed, this is true for most datasets involving invertebrates. The one problem with museum collections is that they tend to be dominated (proportionally) by 'scarcer' species and by species that are tricky to identify. This creates an unhelpful imbalance that means that pre-1976 data are not ideal in presenting an image of what the hoverfly fauna looked like in the past. The one thing we do know is that certain species were regarded as 'prizes' (e.g. Volucella zonaria). Some data from this period are definitely helpful in reconstructing our knowledge of particular species. Anybody wanting to see this in action should look at two papers Stuart and I published on Volucella inanis and V. zonaria.

http://www.bacoastal.co.uk/Entomology/2004-Volucella-zonaria.pdf

http://www.bacoastal.co.uk/Entomology/2003-Volucella-inanis.pdf

Many of the species that were most prized were big and bold (e.g. Callicera aurata). It is now possible to read the accounts of field trips by one of the early Dipterists and then actually hold the specimen the describe taking - which is an amazing link back in history.

Evolution of the dataset

Fast speed forward to 1976. Between 1976 and around 2009 the data held by the HRS was primarily supplied by people who at least partially retained specimens. Over 50% of the data were supplied by around 20 people. Those people generally record all taxa - in other words they tackle difficult genera such as Cheilosia and Pipiza. Having voucher specimens is essential if there are questions about a species' identity or if there is a split. Even experienced recorders make mistakes and being able to check is helpful. Only yesterday I spent the afternoon checking the IDs of specimens forwarded for verification. Not all were right, even from very experienced recorders. So, we must assume there are dodgy records in the dataset (some mine I expect).

The degree to which records are dodgy is often difficult to tell, but I have four species in mind where I think the maps definitely include significant misinformation: Lejogaster tarsata, Platycheirus immarginatus, P. nielseni and possibly Eristalinus aeneus. In the case of the Platycheirus I think we will have to restrict maps to cases where males have been recorded - females are too readily confused with others. This means that we will only get a realistic picture from specimens.

That leaves another 50% of data. What I have found is that there is a strong separation between the records of the nucleus who retain specimens and the remainder of the data, with far fewer records of tricky species/genera, and far more of species that can to a greater or lesser degree be identified from photographs or in the wild. Of course, we do get small blocks of data from people who work all taxa but do relatively little recording, so the data are not simply dominated by recorders who don't tackle tricky species. These data exclude lists where I take one look and say 'Chinnery' - there are ways of telling how recorders behave and the sources they use. They also exclude lists where it seems to me that the author has not used the key or bothered to check on a species' distribution - the presence of Scottish or coastal species in a list for a dry southern grassland is a fair indication!

So, moving on to the era where the mantra is: take nothing but photos and leave nothing but footprints. I am just finalising an analysis of species covered by photographs over 2014. That highlights just over 130 species (I have excluded a few photos of rare animals that were posted because I know they will arrive via lists supplied by the author). I also have an analysis of what has not been identified - no great surprises - dominated by Cheilosia, Pipiza, Platycheirus, but also including lots of Syrphus and Eristalis. So, bearing in mind this dataset comprises over 10,000 records (all records extracted from internet sources in 2014), there is a new influence on the dataset that will have to be taken into account when data are analysed for trends.

Based on past analysis of photographic records, I reckon that maybe 150 species will be recorded in this way, but that no more than 10 species will dominate the data, and no more than 35-40 will occur in sufficient numbers to perform any year-on-year analysis. Whether numbers will be sufficiently big to undertake latitudinal analysis remains to be seen, but I suspect the list will be depleted further.

Should specimens be retained?

We therefore hit the point where one must ask the question 'is it necessary to retain specimens?' If one wants to understand what is going on in the natural environment there is a need for quantitative data. In broad terms, that means trapping (and killing). But, trapping is fairly indiscriminate and does not necessarily cover all taxa. Also, trapping can kill large numbers of 'rare' species before this is detected. In the case of poorly known taxa this may never be detected. So, although trapping has its place, it has many drawbacks. If trapping is used to sample a narrow spectrum of animals then what happens to the by-catch? Bearing in mind this can be voluminous, the chances of it being tackled by a specialist are small. BUT, the data are quantitative and can probably be repeated at suitable intervals, thus forming a long time-series. One of the best examples of this is the Rothampstead moth survey. Jenny Owen's malaise trap also produced a really valuable time-series from her Leicester garden. These are rare, but valuable resources, and anything Government funded is under threat, so may not be available in future.

The Rothampstead programme has already been cut. Its loss would be catastrophic because it has highlighted a terrible decline in moth populations. Those changes are not down to retaining specimens - they are a mixture of climatic factors and anthropogenic changes to the countryside. Similar declines can be detect for many other taxa, including hoverflies. About 40% of our hoverfly fauna is in decline. We know this from the HRS dataset, which is supplied by a mixture of lethal and non-lethal sources, collected largely in an ad-hoc manner. These data are not ideal, but they are the best we have.

So, we now return to the question of retaining specimens in this modern World. A relatively small number of people retain specimens and many of them contribute extensive lists to the HRS. My guess is that around 150 people across Britain retain any level of specimens, and most retain very little. The contribution they make to the dataset is considerable, however. Perhaps not every specimen needs to be retained, but overall the impact of specimen retention is negligible. Conversely, the impact of the contribution to the dataset is considerable. Like it or not, we actually need people who are prepared to retain specimens and are driven by this interest. If we rely on non-lethal techniques then we will see a diminution in the value of the dataset.

It is therefore important to put specimen retention into context. Anybody who has watched social wasps hunting will know that they are voracious killers. A single nest may kill many tens of thousands of insects. Stuart and I did a bit of work in a small wood in Northamptonshire a few years ago that showed there was a strong probability of about 1 wasp's nest for every 1.5 ha of woodland. (i.e. around 40 nests in 60ha). That mounts up to a huge volume of invertebrate biomass. So social wasps are clearly important regulators of invertebrates. They happily munch hoverflies and if they have the same abilities of Anthrenus (museum beetle) my bet is that they take rare species disproportionately. So, our active Dipterist, working over the year, probably equates in impact to little more than a few workers within a social wasp nest, spread over a much larger area.

Ah, I hear you say, but if the 'collector' did not collect, then there would be more insects. TRUE! FRACTIONALLY! But also there would be CONSIDERABLY less data.

A further moral dilemma

So let us move on to the take nothing but footprints argument. No hoverflies were killed in the making of this day out? Well, maybe. But if you drive to your venue that may not be so. We know that huge volumes of insects are killed in collision with cars. So, those who choose not to take specimens but enjoy watching wildlife in special places are also taking an informed decision to kill. It is just that they do so indiscriminately and with little knowledge of what they are doing.

I have had this debate with several proponents of this philosophy and am amazed by the answers they give - very largely about the fact that this improves their quality of life and the death of the insects they kill on the road is not intentional. How can this be? After all, they know that cars kill insects and will be irritated by the splat marks on the windscreen when they impair visibility. So, I fear, anybody who uses powered transport to conduct their hobby is having a negative impact on insects. Who knows if their victims are common or rare? The result is the same, but there is a difference between this approach and that of the entomologist who retains specimens. One generates partial data and the other more comprehensive data. Maybe this is a broad generalisation, but I think the key philosophical question relates to the contribution the deaths of insects make to our knowledge of insect ecology.

I therefore hold the view that the immoral issue is not about whether or not specimens are retained; it is about the degree to which we pursue our interests without making a contribution back to the wildlife we love. Detailed recording at whatever level can make a difference in highlighting the plight of wildlife. At least with robust data there is something to influence politicians and decision-makers. The biggest threat to wildlife is arguably the loss of taxonomically competent recorders whose contributions are essential if we are to track the trajectory of wildlife abundance.

Phenology of Episyrphus balteatus in 2014 and 2013

In a few moments of inactivity I took a look at the phenology of a few species seen this year. One that I thought worth looking at was Episyrphus balteatus as it is reported in very large numbers. The attached histograms are strictly for photographic records - I will look in more detail once the garden records have arrived.

Data were plotted in four blocks:

•  All records for 2014 and 2013 plotted separately
• South of a line created by the northern limits of ST/SU/TQ plotted as separate years 2014 and 2013.
• Midlands - up from the northern limits of ST/SU/TQ to the southern limits of SE/SD plotted as separate years 2014 and 2013.
• North - north of the limits of the southern limits of SE-SD plotted as separate years 2014 and 2013.

The results were a bit of a surprise:

1. It looks as though there might be as many as four generations in southern England - I expected 3 but there is a bit of a March generation too.
2. In 2014 I found no migration peak at the end of July but there is quite a spike by late June - and a pronounced spike in the Midlands.
3. The number of generations in the midlands is a bit messy - probably 3, but I cannot be sure. It begs the question - can one come up with a series of thermoclines to come up with differences in phenology?
   
4. The northern population seems to have a distinct single generation.

What I think it starts to tell us is that every year is very different, and that this species probably has slightly different emergence strategies even between southern England and the Midlands. In 2014, in which we had an exceptionally mild spring and autumn it looks as though there were probably at least 4 generations in southern England, whereas the further north one gets it seems to be broadly univoltine.What I find particularly puzzling is that the late July migration spike was not picked up this year. I have a feeling that this may only be detected by absolute counts.

Figure 1. Total 2014 records of Episyrphus balteatus against week number.

Figure 2. 2014 records of Episyrphus balteatus from southern England.

Figure 3. 2014 records of Episyrphus balteatus from the English midlands and Wales.

Figure 4. 2014 records of Episyphus balteatus from northern England and Scotland.

Figure 5. Total 2013 records of Episyrphus balteatus against week number

Figure 6. 2013 Episyrphus balteatus records from southern England

Figure 7. 2013 Episyrphus balteatus records from the English Midlands and Wales.

Figure 8. 2013 Episyrphus balteatus records from northern England and Scotland

Reflections on 2014 - a good year for hoverfly recording?

As autumn draws in and the numbers of hoverflies seen rapidly declines, it is perhaps worth reflecting on what has happened in 2014. Obviously only a proportion of data are available for analysis, but I think the photographic dataset is pretty robust, so I have taken a quick look to see what story it conveys.

If one looks at absolute numbers of records, it looks as though hoverfly recording has gained speed and the numbers of records have grown exponentially (Figure 1). Part of this is undoubtedly the establishment of the UK Hoverflies Facebook group, which has provided a very active forum to promote recording and where occasional casual records can be submitted. There will be big blocks of data from others coming in during the Autumn and Winter, so we will not really know for some time how well recorded 2014 will be. Even so, the data are encouraging. There are lots more casual recorders and a fair number of people who now regularly record hovers. Two photographers have each contributed in excess of 450 records each and there are seven others who have contributed between 100 and 250 records.  Big blocks of data are a great boost to the scheme, especially when they paint a picture for a single site.

Figure 1. Growth in the photographic dataset between 2011 and 2014.

 


The second aspect of photographic recording in 2014 relates to the abundance of hoverflies represented. We saw lots of activity throughout the winter and a really productive April, followed by a cold wet May. The graph of photographic records for 2014 (as a percentage of all records) shows how hoverfly abundance came to a shuddering halt! (Figure 2) If compared against a similar graph for the period 2002 to 2014 covering all of the photographic records I hold (Figure 3), it is clear just how different May was to the general pattern What is less clear is the degree to which this had a knock-on effect into June and July. Membership of the Facebook group grew very rapidly at this time and a growth in recorder numbers may have masked some of these effects.

Figure 2. Monthly totals of photographic records extracted for 2014.

Figure 3. Monthly totals for photographic records covering the years 2002 to 2014.

The graph for 2014 illustrates one of the developing problems for many invertebrates - they are definitely emerging earlier in the year (see earlier posts), but just when there is a need for warm sunny weather there is a cold wet spell that affects both adults and developing larvae. This may be one reason why some species appear not to be doing well. Obviously, this is just a single year's data and there are limitations because the membership of the UK Hoverflies Facebook Group group has been growing throughout the summer. Inevitably, the relative numbers of records may be different, but the overall picture would probably be more stark if this was to be taken into account.

I think it is a great endorsement of what is possible when an interactive medium such as Facebook is used to encourage biological recording, but there may be issues to deal with in due course. Readers will know from previous posts that relatively few representatives of some genera are photographed, and that there are some genera that really cannot be identified from photos. This means that there will be an inevitable need to look at analytical techniques to make sure that interpretations of trends are not influenced by the recording technique. Stuart has started to look at this and has concluded that there is a skew developing (as I have previously predicted).

Data skews are not necessarily a problem provided they are recogised and taken into account when undertaking analysis. The big question now is how to make sure that some forms of recording are promoted to generate comprehensive data sets. Stuart Ball has looked at the data that he, me and a couple of other very active recorders were generating and clearly there is a difference in what occurs. My own analysis (unpublished) showed that there was just over a 50% overlap between the 30 commonest represented species recorded using photography and those recorded by my own sampling - which comprehensively covers all species encountered. Data held by the HRS lies somewhere midway, which indicates that there is undoubtedly a skewing effect. BUT, does this matter? - Maybe not.

My instincts are that we will have to split data for certain analytical processes and that the next target for me to pay attention to is developing a set of replacements for the people such as Stuart, me, Alan Stubbs etc. I guess we need at least 20 such recorders to form the nucleus for the next 30 years (and must hopefully encourage a few to take on the role of growing a further generation).

What I think is greatly encouraging is that there is so much more interest in hoverflies and that so many new people are making active contributions that really are useful. The Hoverfly Recording Scheme is about so much more than mapping. Provided we recruit a broad constituency of new recorders we will hopefully be able to continue to keep hoverflies high on the agenda of research into the effects of landscape and climate change on Britain's wonderful wildlife.