4 results
6 - Methods for surveying habitats
-
- By R. V. Birnie, G. Tucker, Freelance Ecologist, M. Fasham, Principal Consultant RPS Group plc, T. Rich, M. Rebane, F. McMeechan, D. Dobson, G. Peterken
- Edited by David Hill, RPS Group plc, UK, Matthew Fasham, RPS Group plc, UK, Graham Tucker, Ecological Solutions, UK, Michael Shewry, Scottish Natural Heritage, Philip Shaw, Scottish Natural Heritage
-
- Book:
- Handbook of Biodiversity Methods
- Published online:
- 01 September 2010
- Print publication:
- 04 August 2005, pp 154-236
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
GENERAL HABITAT SURVEY AND MONITORING METHODS
The methods described in Section 6.1 may be applied to the surveying and monitoring of most habitat types. Section 6.1.1 provides an overview of remote sensing technology, which includes both satellite-based remote sensing (Section 6.1.2) and aerial photography (Section 6.1.3). Remote sensing, Phase I habitat mapping (Section 6.15) and National Vegetation Classification (NVC) surveys (Section 6.16) are principally survey techniques for mapping and/or quantifying the extent of different habitats at a variety of scales. This may be carried out for a number of different purposes:
audits of habitat resources;
the production of maps for management plans; and
general recording of changes in landscapes and habitats, e.g. to document the result of land-use changes or management practices.
Such methods may also be used for basic monitoring of the presence, extent and distribution of habitats. Knowledge of the distribution and extent of habitats and vegetation types is useful for identifying site features and their approximate boundaries, defining monitoring units, defining homogeneous strata for stratified random sampling and locating samples within defined habitats of strata.
Remote sensing principles
The term ‘environmental remote sensing’ covers all means of detecting and measuring environmental conditions from a distance. There is a huge variety of remote sensing instruments currently available, which cover both imaging and non-imaging systems. This section covers only imaging systems. The principal differences between these systems relate to their:
modes of data collection (e.g cameras, scanners, radars etc.);
storage media (film or digital); and the
platforms from which the instrument operates (aircraft or satellite).
15 - Vascular plants
-
- By T. Rich, V. Hack, F. McMeechan
- Edited by David Hill, RPS Group plc, UK, Matthew Fasham, RPS Group plc, UK, Graham Tucker, Ecological Solutions, UK, Michael Shewry, Scottish Natural Heritage, Philip Shaw, Scottish Natural Heritage
-
- Book:
- Handbook of Biodiversity Methods
- Published online:
- 01 September 2010
- Print publication:
- 04 August 2005, pp 303-321
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
There are a series of general problems that can be encountered when monitoring vascular plants, not all of which will apply in every case. The type of plant being surveyed, the methods used and the recorders can all affect the results (Rich & Woodruff, 1990).
Defining an individual
Defining an individual plant can be a problem; opinions differ between botanists. With annuals or biennials there are rarely difficulties as their growth forms are generally simple. Perennials have more varied growth forms. If the species grows in dense clumps, the clumps might be composed of one or more individuals, and species spreading by stolons or rhizomes may form single or mixed patches of clones. Clonal perennials may also fragment, resulting in two or more parts of the original plant. Trees tend to be counted as individual trunks, although some trees such as Aspen Populus tremula spread by suckers.
Alternatively, proxy measures of abundance can be used such as the number of ramets or shoots, or percentage cover, rather than the number of individuals.
The method by which an individual is defined should be clearly stated at the outset of survey and monitoring, so that this can be followed subsequently.
Defining populations
The definition of the extent of a population varies between botanists. It is possible to delimit populations by compartment, habitat, site, ownership or other boundaries, distance to nearest neighbouring populations, or by 1 km square, etc.
8 - Habitat conservation evaluation criteria
-
- By G. Trucker, Freelance Ecologist, F. McMeechan
- Edited by David Hill, RPS Group plc, UK, Matthew Fasham, RPS Group plc, UK, Graham Tucker, Ecological Solutions, UK, Michael Shewry, Scottish Natural Heritage, Philip Shaw, Scottish Natural Heritage
-
- Book:
- Handbook of Biodiversity Methods
- Published online:
- 01 September 2010
- Print publication:
- 04 August 2005, pp 245-250
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
KEY EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS
The conservation importance of habitats occurring in the UK has generally been assessed in terms of the threat status of each habitat type, where attributes such as rarity and rate of decline (of overall area) have been taken into account. In terms of evaluating the conservation importance of any particular habitat type, reference must be made to international and national conservation legislation and initiatives such as the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) process, described further below.
The key considerations with regards to evaluating habitats are listed below.
Check lists of habitats of conservation importance (see below for information on which lists to check and where to obtain the relevant information).
Check existing designation status: for EIAs (see Box 8.1), the search area should extend to 2 km from the boundary of the site. This will inform the results of the Phase 1 survey and highlight areas of habitat on or near the site that are within the boundaries of statutory or non-statutory designations.
Carry out a preliminary (scoping) survey for habitats. This will normally be a Phase I habitat survey (see Section 6.1.5) to identify the broad habitat types present on site.
These three steps should enable the determination of Valuable Ecosystem Components (VECs) (in terms of habitat types) that may potentially be present. To establish the actual presence or absence of a VEC, further survey may be necessary; for habitats, a National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey (Rodwell, 1991) is recommended.
5 - Habitat requirements and issues
-
- By T. Rich, G. Peterken, G. Tucker, Freelance Ecologist, F. McMeechan, D. Dobson
- Edited by David Hill, RPS Group plc, UK, Matthew Fasham, RPS Group plc, UK, Graham Tucker, Ecological Solutions, UK, Michael Shewry, Scottish Natural Heritage, Philip Shaw, Scottish Natural Heritage
-
- Book:
- Handbook of Biodiversity Methods
- Published online:
- 01 September 2010
- Print publication:
- 04 August 2005, pp 107-153
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The primary purpose of this section is to identify, for each broad habitat type, the potential attributes that indicate the condition of the habitat and to recommend methods that may be used for monitoring each of these. These recommended methods are described individually in Chapter 6, or in Part III (species) for methods that are more often applicable to surveying and monitoring individual species. The section also identifies key management actions and other environmental factors that may have impacts on the habitat and may therefore require monitoring. Finally, any specific monitoring issues (e.g. practical implementation, health and safety and the frequency of monitoring) that may influence the design of a survey or monitoring programme in the habitat are briefly described. Habitats have been divided according to UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Broad Habitat types. Based on structural similarities the methods can be applied to the full range of habitat types found in Europe and, indeed, other parts of the world.
Within the UK, JNCC have recently published online guidelines on Common Standards Monitoring. This provides guidance on setting and assessing conservation objectives for the range of species and habitat features which occur on UK protected sites. The process is now well advanced, with guidance available on conservation objectives and assessment methodologies for about 75% of the features of designated sites. At the time of writing, guidance was available for coastal, lowland grassland, lowland heathland, upland and woodland habitat features. Guidance on lowland wetlands and freshwater habitats is being developed.