A few weeks ago I was interviewed by Mr. James Fair (a journalist working for BBC Wildlife) who was interested in publishing a story on the Species Action Plan (SAP) targets that were announced for great crested newt earlier this year. Following a lengthy interview Mr. Fair wrote a news story entitled 'In the Eye of a Storm' that was published in the October 2007 edition of the magazine. The article attempts to inject controversy into what is really quite a dull story.
Does it succeed in generating a storm, or are we simply left with little more than a muddy puddle. Read on to find out!
The tag-line for the story gets off to a bad start:
"The great crested newt is a rare British amphibian protected under European legislation and theoretically the subject of focussed conservation efforts. So why can no one agree on how many are out there?"
'Theoretically' the subject of focussed conservation efforts? Where is Mr. Fair's evidence that current conservation efforts are unfocussed? He certainly does not address this in his article. In fact, I would argue that conservation efforts are becoming increasingly more focussed. Mr. Fair also suggests that no one can agree on how many newts there are in the country. No one? Reading Mr. Fair's article it would appear that the only person he could find who doesn't agree is Tom Langton. Are we supposed to infer that Tom is a no one?!
The main body of the article continues:
"The scientists say that the species is not as rare as once thought..."
Who are the scientists who say this? They remain rather elusive in Mr. Fair's article. Has anybody actually said this?
I consider that in some areas the species is relatively widespread, but even in these 'hotspots' gcn can be highly sensitive to environmental change. The species appears to be dependent on areas of relatively high pond density. Where conditions change and there is a decrease in the number of suitable breeding ponds, gcn populations often collapse.
In Kent, the BRANCH project has made predictions of how climate change may result in significant declines in species such as the great crested newt. So rather than attempting to define gcn in terms of 'rarity', it may be more accurate to state that 'the great crested newt is far more threatened than even the early conservationists could have believed...'. Just a thought.
"...but their figures are speculative and disputed."
What scientific data isn't speculative and disputed!? Good science involves the testing of a null hypothesis. Scientific experiments don't attempt to prove that an idea is correct, they try and prove that it is wrong. If ideas were never challenged there would be little scientific progress. It is fantastic that somebody disputes the reported figures. What we now need is for other herpetofauna workers to review this subject and publish their own occupancy data.
I guarantee that the currently quoted figures for the number of gcn ponds in the country will not be exactly correct. But, you know what? At the present time it doesn't matter if we are a few thousands or even tens of thousands out. What we really need to know is how accurate are our current estimates and how can we refine our techniques to improve the accuracy of our future predictions? Hopefully, publication of the new SAP targets will increase debate and lead to increased reporting of survey work.
"The Herpetological Conservation Trust (HCT) now estimates that there are 100,000 ponds in Britain that have great crested newts, a figure more than five times that in the previous SAP, which said there were 18,000 breeding ponds."
A cheeky sleight of hand here by Mr. Fair. On the one hand we have 100,000 ponds that have gcn. On the other we have 18,000 breeding ponds. As I have previously shown there is actually quite a difference between occupying a pond and breeding within it. Taking gcn occupancy data for Kent as a reference, out of those 100,000 ponds perhaps 'only' 61,000 may be used for breeding. Of course, the relationship between occupancy and breeding will vary across the country particularly in areas with different pond densities. But even so, it's not quite the five-fold increase that Mr. Fair suggests.
"Tony Gent ... says that the new figure is based partly ..."
Emphasis mine.
"... on research carried out by Dr Lee Brady ..."
Indeed, the new figure was partly based on research undertaken by myself and other Kent based colleagues (including KRAG volunteers). This research produced the occupancy data that I have generated using habitat suitability indices (HSI). As Jim Foster later points out, it was also influenced by data from several other areas, including extensive surveys in Norfolk, Suffolk, Herefordshire (hi Will!) and Flintshire.
Given that there are believed to be about 400,000 ponds in Britain, if the new figure was wholly based on Kent occupancy data we would be looking at 176,000 gcn ponds across the country (400,000 x 44%)! Considering that there are apparently 25,000 ponds in Sheffield gardens alone, the Pond Conservation estimate of 400,000 ponds in the country may already be out of date.
"'This is a very rough figure', he said. 'Between 50,000 and 100,000 is likely to be the best guess.'"
Tony is suggesting that on average, gcn are likely to occupy between 12.5% and 25% of the country's ponds. Clearly in some areas (such as Kent and Cheshire), occupancy levels will be much higher. Elsewhere, gcn may be completely absent (e.g. Cornwall).
Apparently, Tom Langton (who is described as a government advisor on newt issues - does that also make me a government advisor I wonder?) believes that the 100,000 figure is too high. Fair enough, it might well be. Tom is then quoted as saying:
"Published research suggests there are no more than 25,000 occupied ponds"
I don't see any reference for this 'published research'. But let's be clear here. Until the recent boon in ecological consultants, extensive amphibian surveys were rather limited. Early survey work often suffered from a lack of effort. The detection of gcn in ponds can be hampered by muddy water, lots of weed and limited time. Under these conditions, gcn tend to only be recorded in the ponds where they are easiest to find. I suggest that early estimates of gcn pond occupancy failed to adequately address gcn detectability. Survey techniques are increasingly becoming more sophisticated so that problems with the detectability of a species can be minimised (e.g. distance sampling). For gcn, detection rates at ponds are increased by using multiple survey techniques across several visits. Sadly, estimating the number of gcn that occupy terrestrial habitat is still a very difficult prospect.
So am I suggesting that Tom's comments are wrong? No, not at all. However, the science has moved on.
"These differing views on the status of the great crested newt may stem from Brady originally claiming that there are 18,000 occupied ponds in Kent alone."
No, the differing views are based on individual interpretations of different datasets. As far as I remember, Tom wasn't on the gcn SAP steering group and didn't contribute to the discussion of the most recently available dataset.
Have I claimed there are 18,000 occupied ponds in Kent alone? Sort of. I have certainly suggested that, caveats aside, there could be as many as 18,000 ponds occupied by gcn in Kent and the basis for this suggestion is detailed here. But seriously, are these 'differing views' really due to the fifteen minute presentation I gave at the 2006 Herpetofauna Workers Meeting? Let's be realistic here folks!
The talk that I gave to delegates at the 2006 Herpetofauna Workers Meeting illustrated the mechanism by which estimates can be derived from occupancy data. Remember it is the occupancy data that has contributed to the SAP process and the occupancy data is based on accurate and repeatable pond survey work. Of course, Mr. Fair was told this but has chosen not to make reference to it.
"He now says this was based on inaccurate data supplied to him about the total number of ponds in the county"
Emphasis mine. Now says? Possible issues with the Kent pond data were expressed during the talk and folks were reminded that the research was a work in progress. The information certainly was not presented as a definitive statement of fact.
Mr. Fair's article appears to have a moment of clarity when Natural England's Jim Foster is quoted as saying that:
"... the Kent data was not crucial to the revised figure."
Apparently, there is also:
"... consensus among scientists ... over numbers declining due to pond loss and fragmentation."
Unfortunately, things start to go downhill again...
"The revised SAP aims to increase the number of occupied ponds from 100,000 to 120,000 by 2010"
I agree that it is an ambitious target, but I don't quite share Tom's view that it is:
"Pie in the Sky"
In fact what the SAP steering group hoped to promote was widespread pond creation. As Jim Foster is quoted as saying, the target will be met by:
"restoring and creating appropriate habitat using agrienvironment measures."
The idea is to encourage creation of ponds that score relatively high on the HSI system. The process of pond creation and the high target were inspired by the Million Ponds Project, a major new initiative being organised by Pond Conservation that is due to start in 2008.
A million ponds! How many of those will be occupied by gcn? Perhaps the SAP target aimed too low?!
In summary then, the BBC article attempts to create a storm, but in reality it achieves little more than a drizzle. Which is a shame. No really! I believe that surveying for amphibians (and reptiles) is extremely rewarding and collecting data that enables us to more accurately make predictions regarding the distribution of threatened species is really quite exciting. We also absolutely need folks to challenge the status quo. Tom has done that and all credit to him. However, Tom has been let down by a journalist who has promoted drama over fact.
During my interview and subsequent exchange of emails I made it quite clear to Mr. Fair that the 18,000 gcn ponds quoted in my 2006 talk had not been the basis for the countrywide estimation of 100,000 occupied ponds. I also alerted him to the Pond Conservation project. Mr. Fair has been very selective in the information presented within his article and frankly I consider the article to be rather shoddy journalism. I guess that given the spate of reports concerning the cheating and misrepresentation of information that the BBC has now admitted to, it shouldn't really come as a great surprise.
On a much more positive note, if you are interested in learning more about the ongoing great crested newt survey work in Kent and would like to hear me present the now infamous talk entitled 'How Many Great Crested Newt Ponds are there in Kent?', then look out for details of KRAG's AGM in January 2008!
Edit 22/10/07 to correct some minor typos.