Yellow-legged Centurion soldierfly (Sargus flavipes) – photo: Martin Harvey
Following the release of the new photo ID guide to soldierflies in genus Sargus, for the Soldierflies and Allies Recording Scheme, dipterist Ruud van der Weele got in touch via Twitter to say that he had recently seen a presentation showing that all species of Sargus were declining in the Netherlands, with the exception of Twin-spot Centurion S. bipunctatus. Ruud asked whether there was any evidence of similar declines in Sargus species in the UK.
Caveat to almost everything shown below: there are very few records in the recording scheme from before the 1980s, and even since then the numbers are still quite low and there are many potential biases to consider. The charts below are a simplistic visualisation of the available data and no statistical rigour is claimed!
If we look just at the raw numbers of records in the recording scheme database, S. bipunctatus is doing very well, S. cuprarius has almost vanished, while S. flavipes and S. iridatus seem to be declining from a 1980s peak.
However, the amount of soldierfly recording has increased greatly from the 1980s onwards, making it hard to interpret the changes in the chart above.
The variation in recording effort can partially be taken into account by looking at the number of records per decade for each Sargus species as a proportion of the total number of soldierfly (Stratiomyidae) records received for each decade.
Remember that the above chart is based on very small amounts of data up to the 1980s. Since then, the story is much the same though: S. bipunctatus is perhaps on the increase (or perhaps lends itself to being photographed now that photo recording is more prevalent), S. cuprarius has almost vanished, and S. flavipes and S. iridatus seem to have declined since the 1980s, and maybe from a higher peak before then.
Occupancy models are a method of accounting for the biases within non-structured data such as that collected by recording schemes. This is a much more sophisticated way of analysing the scheme data than the charts shown earlier in this post, and it is reassuring to see that there is some similarity in the results, with S. bipunctatus once again holding its own while there are declines in S. flavipes and S. iridatus.
So it does look as if trends in these species in the UK are consistent with those reported for the Netherlands. What is causing this is another question of course.
Update at 11 February 2020: Thanks to Charlie Outhwaite for providing more information on the occupancy estimates referred to above: “There is a Shiny app that allows you to choose a species and explore the data from the Outhwaite et al. data publications. The app can be used to view occupancy and detection plots for individual species, although we emphasise that the models developed here may not be optimal for every individual species considered, and that the occupnacy estimate plots should not be used uncritically for single-species assessments.”
I’ve been involved with biological recording as a volunteer for over 40 years, and have worked in this area for about 20 years. Throughout that time there has been an ongoing debate about what system/s should be used for wildlife recording, with many views expressed about the pros and cons of spreadsheets, databases and online systems. That debate shows no sign of coming to an end!
One for all or all for one?
I think there are a couple of over-arching explanations for the lack of consensus. One is that there is always a conflict between having one system that everyone uses (which is great for bringing data together and should be simpler for people to get involved, but may not be perfect for a particular purpose), compared to having many bespoke systems (likely to perform better for particular purposes, but more difficult to bring lots of data together and more confusing for recorders to know where to send records).
The other is that there are many differing, and sometimes conflicting, ideas about how recording should be done, what level of detail is required, what level of control should be exercised (e.g. who should have the final say over editing and checking the records), and how the records should be checked and shared for wider use.
So having one system that is perfect for all of biological recording may be an unrealistic and even undesirable aim. But in the meantime those of us who run recording schemes have to make a choice about what to do. For the schemes I run, that choice is to recommend that records are entered into iRecord wherever possible, and this post explains why I’ve reached that decision.
What’s my agenda?
Two further things before I get properly started. I need to declare a blatant interest, in that I work for the UK Biological Records Centre, who set up iRecord, and part of my work is to support iRecord development. So you might be unsurprised to find that I am a fan of the system – I would (have to) say that wouldn’t I! However, I was an enthusiastic iRecord user before I started working at BRC, and the time I spend as a recording scheme organiser and iRecord verifier is entirely done as a volunteer.
Also, I am not trying to say that iRecord is the one true way, and everyone else has to follow suit. iRecord is a tool for biological recording – it is not perfect, and there are many other options out there, as shown by the wide range of solutions adopted by different recording schemes, who all manage to do amazing things with the systems that work for them. But I do want to explain why it is that I’ve settled on iRecord for my schemes. So I’d better get on to that!
Why I like iRecord
I have been county moth recorder for Berkshire since 1995, and have been organiser for the national Soldierflies and Allies Recording Scheme since 2012. For both these schemes iRecord is my preferred route for records to be sent in (although of course it is not compulsory and records arrive via many other routes as well).
Some of the things I like about iRecord:
It brings together records from many different websites and apps and makes them available to my schemes in one place
If people send in photos, they are stored with the records, I don’t have to spend time filing photos away and cross-referencing them
It is free, widely available via websites and apps, and (relatively) easy for people to use (I now spend far less time doing computer support and installations for other recorders than I did when standalone databases were more widely used)
It tracks which records I have checked and which I haven’t, making it simple to do blocks of verification when I have time, and then pick up again at a later stage
It explicitly stores my verification decisions and any comments I need to add to them, so I can easily see why a decision was reached, and allows rejected records to be retained in case future queries arise over them
People can see their records being added to the iRecord map instantaneously, which is great for ‘live’ recording projects such as ‘Bee-fly Watch‘ that tracks the emergence of these species each spring
“Activity” pages can be added to provide feedback to recorders – here’s the Bee-fly Watch example from 2019:
If people send me spreadsheets I can (with their permission) upload them into iRecord fairly easily so that the data gets combined in one place for me to check
The records added to iRecord become immediately available to me for the recording scheme, and at the same time to the relevant local environmental records centre (if they wish to make use of them)
I can ask iRecord to include my recording schemes in their regular uploads of records to the NBN Atlas – I don’t need to take any additional action to make this happen. Once on the NBN Atlas they are then passed on to GBIF, the global equivalent:
I get to ‘meet’ (in an online sense) many recorders that I would not otherwise have been in touch with. Some of these only ever contribute one or two records, but others go on to make substantial contributions, and this is immensely rewarding to see
That’s quite a long list and I could go on (iRecord backs up the data, iRecord has some built-in rules for checking records against time of year and distribution, which are imperfect but still useful, etc.).
So it’s all good then?
I could also add a list of the things that I don’t like about iRecord, which would certainly include the times when it runs slowly or the page freezes, and there are other things which have pros and cons. And the relatively limited mapping and analysis tools within iRecord mean that I regularly download the data and use other systems such as QGIS for mapping. But for me the advantages of iRecord greatly outweight the disadvantages. And I live in hope that some of the downsides can be improved upon in future!
Bringing data together
Part of the original motivation for BRC’s development of iRecord was to encourage online recording to be as linked up as possible, in order to make the records available to national recording schemes and the county recorders associated with them. As online recording first became a reality there was a danger that a huge number of systems would be set up and records would get fragmented into many separate ‘silos’. iRecord allows records from many websites and apps to be brought together in one place and made available for verification.
And verification does depend on a lot of hard-working volunteers, all of whom are busy people with many calls on their time. Not all species have recording schemes, and not all schemes are active on iRecord, and it’s understandable that people sometimes get frustrated when their records on iRecord aren’t being verified, but a large and increasing proportion of records are being verified and that is all thanks to the dedicated and expert people who offer their time to carry out this role. For more on this see iRecord’s Help page on “Verification: what, who and why“.
It’s clear from discussions I have with other recording schemes and from online debates that iRecord does not meet everyone’s needs, and may never fully do so. And that’s fine – there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the whole of biological recording, and it’s good to have innovation from a variety of viewpoints. But for me iRecord helps a lot and I couldn’t imagine being able to run my schemes without it. Many thanks to all the recorders who have now added over 34,000 records of soldierflies and allies to iRecord, and over 100,000 records for moths in Berkshire!
Last Sunday morning I was walking in the Buckinghamshire Chilterns. I was feeling a bit tired and unenthusiastic, and for once was not really thinking about recording insects. But it’s impossible to completely turn off the entomological instincts, and a fairly large cuckoo bee (or nomad bee, genus Nomada) caught my eye. It was flying among the vegetation at the top of a bank on BBOWT‘s Grangelands nature reserve.
I took a quick snap but wasn’t very careful about it, and the bee soon vanished into the undergrowth. But it had looked somehow different, and as I walked home it dawned on me that it just might have been something special. By the time I got home I was keen to see the photo, but I’d done a really poor job – blurry and distant. Even so, what few details I could make out were consistent with it being something potentially very special: was there a chance it could be the Armed Nomad Bee, Nomada armata.
That, however, is a Red Data Book 1 species, and listed as being of ‘Principal Importance’ in the NERC Act. And as far as I knew it hadn’t been seen anywhere outside Salisbury Plain for about 50 years. So a grotty blurred photo wasn’t really going to cut it.
Nomada bees are ‘cleptoparasitic’ bees that take over the nests of other bees. The host for the Armed Nomad is Andrena hattorfiana, the Large Scabious Mining Bee, itself a rare species but one that has been spreading, and was first found in Buckinghamshire in 2007, by Aaron Woods, near Beaconsfield. Following that it has been seen at a few other sites, including at Grangelands, where Ryan Clark discovered it a few years ago. So it was at least conceivable that the Armed Nomad had started to follow the expanding range of its host.
But I needed better supporting evidence! And it was getting late in the afternoon by now. So back up the hill I went. Needless to say there was no sign of the female Nomada in the original location, so I set off in search of Field Scabious flowers, which are the flower required by Andrena hattorfiana, and also visited by Nomada armata. After about an hour and a half of searching, and on the opposite side of the reserve from the morning’s sighting, I saw a bee on a Field Scabious flowers.
Nervous with excitement I nearly fumbled the net, but managed to catch what turned out to be a male Armed Nomad. Some slightly better photos ensued, and as soon as I got home I sent these to Stuart Roberts of BWARS, who very promptly confirmed the identification – thanks Stuart.
As far as I know this is the first time the Armed Nomad has been seen in Buckinghamshire, and the first time for about 50 years that it had been recorded away from Salisbury Plain – or so I thought …
I reported the find to BBOWT, who passed the message on to Peter Creed, author of A guide to finding bees in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. To my amazement Peter got in touch to say that he had also found Nomada armata the same weekend as I did, but at another BBOWT reserve, Dry Sandford Pit in Oxfordshire (vice-county Berkshire). This is a site where it had been recorded before, back in the 1970s. The known range of Nomada armata had suddenly expanded considerably!
Another trip to Grangelands a couple of days later produced good sightings of the host bee Andrena hattorfiana, and one further male Nomada armata. So it looks like it has established itself on the reserve.
It’s always encouraging to see rare species making a recovery, and while it is early days for this one the hope is that both host bee and cuckoo will continue to strengthen their populations and distribution. And BBOWT’s reserves are clearly playing an important role in allowing them to do so. It’s intriguing to think what journeys the Nomada must have made to get from Salisbury Plain to the Buckinghamshire Chilterns.
I spent an enjoyable afternoon today at BBOWT’s Pavis, Black and Northill Woods nature reserve, where there was plenty of insect activity in the warm, humid conditions. This tree stump was at the edge of a path.
Old tree stumps are always worth investigating for insect life, and this one performed well! There was a small water-filled cavity in the top of the stump.
When I peered into it I saw a small forest of thin whitish ‘stems’. At first I thought they might be fungi, but some of them were moving, and I soon noticed that there were small whitish grubs at the lower end of each stem.
These are in fact one of the ‘rat-tailed maggots’, otherwise known as larvae of hoverflies in subfamily Eristalinae.
They seemed to be busy feeding – all the movement visible in the video clip at the top of this post comes from the hoverfly larvae, some of which are pushing and shoving at the bits of vegetation sunk under the water, all the while keeping their long rat-tails reaching to the surface to breathe air.
The most frequent species in tree holes is the Batman Hoverfly, Myathropa florea, but I can’t be certain that these larvae are of that species or one of its relatives.
Thanks to BBOWT for their work on this peaceful and life-filled reserve.
Maybe it’s the time of year: during the next few weeks Buckinghamshire is bursting with meetings, conferences and general sociability for anyone interested in recording and conserving wildlife in the county.
First up is the spring indoor meeting for the Buckinghamshire Invertebrate Group, on Saturday 14 March, 10am to 1pm, at Wendover. Anyone with an interest in insects and other invertebrates in Bucks is welcome to join the (free) mailing list for the group, which produces an excellent annual Bulletin and organises a range of field and indoor meetings. This year is BIG’s 25th anniversary, which will be celebrated at the Recorders’ Seminar (see below). Our indoor meeting is a chance to catch up with friends, help plan the year’s field meetings and hear all the latest bug-related news. To join and get the meeting details contact BIG.
On Saturday 28th March there is another insect-focused day: the Conservation Review Day organised by Upper Thames Branch (UTB) of Butterfly Conservation. This is being held in Berkshire, at Dinton Pastures near Reading, but UTB covers Bucks as well as Berks and Oxon, and the day’s events include talks by Martin Albertini and Tony Gillie on Striped Lychnis moth in Bucks, and by Ched George on Duke of Burgundy butterfly in the Chilterns, as well as more general presentations that will be of interest to anyone involved with the conservation of butterflies and moths in the region. Please come prepared to join in the discussions.
Every year BMERC (the local environmental records centre for Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes) organises a splendid Wildlife Recorders’ Seminar, held as Green Park near Aston Clinton. This year’s programme (Word document download, includes booking form) is in part a celebration of the 25th anniversary of BIG, but also has John Sawyer outlining new developments for the National Biodiversity Network, as well as presentations on freshwater life and water quality from the Environment Agency, and on using DNA for environmental monitoring. BIG then takes centre stage with a series of short presentations from members of the group, and the day concludes with Buglife‘s Sarah Henshall focusing on the invertebrate paradise that brownfield sites can provide. Thoroughly recommended – I should warn you that I’m also down to speak, twice, but both of these are for short periods 🙂
Finally, on Thursday 23 April (and once again at Green Park) there is a fascinating conference with the intriguing title of “Local Spaces : Open Minds” (click for details and booking form). Organised by the Chiltern Commons Project, this day explores what role the Chiltern Commons could play in the environment of the future – how can they best play a part in conserving species, providing outdoor space for healthy living, and contributing to landscape and heritage? You may not realise it, but there are around 200 commons in the Chilterns, many of which have considerable biodiversity and historical interest, as well as playing a role in the wider landscape-scale conservation issues relevant to us all.
Sadly I can’t be at all these events but each looks like it will be worthwhile and enjoyable – join in if you can.
Last Sunday I attended the excellent annual conference of the Garden Moth Scheme, which was well-attended, informative and enjoyable. And most importantly it showed how valuable it can be to record in a slightly more standardised way that we might otherwise do. Read on for more on the benefits of structured recording, and how you can join in with GMS.
Lots of people record moths and send their records in to their county moth recorder, which is an excellent way of finding out which species are where and contributing to the National Moth Recording Scheme. However, using this data for monitoring purposes is not straightforward, as there are so many variations in how, where and when people record their moths. To get good data on population trends for moths a more structured approach is needed.
The largest-scale example of structured moth recording is the Rothamsted Insect Survey (RIS), which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2014. One of the RIS projects gathers data from Rothamsted moth traps positioned around Britain and Ireland. The first of these traps was used in the 1930s and 1940s, and following a gap in the 1950s an extensive network has been developed since the 1960s. This has provided an unparalleled set of long-term monitoring data for moths, and unfortunately what the data tell us is not very good news: the one trap that was running before the second world war was producing a lot more moths than traps have done subsequently, suggesting that there was a major decline in moth abundance in the 1950s (see graph on right). And the declines have continued: Rothamsted data was used in a joint project with Butterfly Conservation to assess the State of Britain’s moths over the last 40 years, from which the headline news was that two-thirds of widespread moths have undergone a significant decline, especially in southern Britain.
The Rothamsted moth traps are run by a network of volunteers, and new volunteers are welcome, but it is quite a big commitment. You have to have space to install the trap, and you have to commit to running it every night of the year for at least five years. Many of the Rothamsted traps are situated in places such as Field Studies Centres or research institutes.
But there is another moth monitoring scheme that you can join in with much more easily. The Garden Moth Scheme asks its participants to run a moth trap once a week (on the same night each week if at all possible) and to record the numbers of a suite of common species (you can of course record all the species you see if you wish, but the GMS focuses on a main list of around 220 species). Even if the weather is unpromising it’s still important to run your trap, and if you have a night where you record no moths that is still useful data! It is this regular pattern of recording once a week whatever the weather that helps give this survey its structured data, and allows for robust analysis of the results.
All in all the GMS is an excellent way for moth recorders to add an element of structured monitoring to their recording, without doing anything other than running a moth-trap in the garden, the sort of thing that moth-recorders love to do anyway! If you want to join in for the 2015 you need to be quick – recording is due to start this coming Friday 6 March (although at a push you can start a week or two later if you miss that first deadline), so head straight over to the GMS Getting involved page. I’m going to give it a go this year, and I look forward to seeing how my results fit in with everyone else’s.
If you do take part in GMS, please remember to copy your results (along with all your non-GMS moth records) to your county moth recorder as well.
Having travelled to Shrewsbury last weekend to speak at the excellent Darwin Festival, organised by Shropshire Wildlife Trust and partners, I took the opportunity to do some extreme entomology. Okay, so The Hollies (next door to The Stiperstones, near Shrewsbury) is a bit higher than where I live, 350 metres as opposed to 100 m, but the altitude can’t be said to be extreme. And although a cold, gloves-on February day might not be the usual choice for bug-hunting – the temperature records claim it was 7-8 °C, but with a biting wind it felt a good deal colder – that wasn’t really extreme either, although it did make it hard to keep the beating tray steady. No, the extreme thing here was the trees I was searching for signs of insect life: a range of ancient Holly trees, some believed to be about 400 years old.
The Holly trees at The Hollies are an extraordinary range of shapes. Many are individual isolated trees that have been sculpted by wind and time into gnarled shapes that stretch and lean. There is precious little shelter to be had, either for the trees themselves, or any insects that might live in or on them, or indeed for the visiting entomologist. This must be one of the few Holly populations anywhere in Britain where the Holly Leaf-miner fly (Phytomyza ilicis) struggles to gain a foothold – I found just a few mines on one of the slightly less exposed trees.
But a lot of insects clearly do make their home here, as testified by the peppering of beetle exit holes in the trunks and limbs of the trees. And in fact the first insect to fall out of a Holly and onto my beating tray was the Lesser Thorn-tipped Longhorn Beetle (Pogonocherus hispidus). Larvae of this small (5mm) but attractive beetle develop in the small branches of a range of trees including Holly. Do have a look at thesetwo great close-ups by John Hallmén on Flickr.
An hour or so of beating and grubbing around the trunks of the the trees produced a small list of other species:
Holly Speckle fungus, Trochila ilicina (a tiny fungus that only grows on dead Holly leaves)
A modest list, but not bad for a very cold February afternoon, especially as all but two (Porcellio scaber and Anthocoris nemorum) of these invertebrates are new records for the Stiperstones area, according to the useful list compiled by Pete Boardman in 2010. I find it comforting that these many of these species have probably been happily living at The Hollies for many generations, over the centuries since the current hollies started growing.
The Hollies is a Shropshire Wildlife Trust reserve and SSSI, so thankfully its special character has been recognised and is being looked after. It’s a shame that so many of the hollies have had to be fenced off, making it look rather like a tree zoo – presumably this is to prevent the trees being damaged by grazing stock. But the ancient hollies still work their magic, redolent of centuries of human interaction with the landscape. There’s more about the history of The Hollies on Sara Bellis’s blog, where she comments that in the past small boys would have been sent up the trees to collect the higher, less prickly leaves, as livestock feed. Since I was accompanied on my visit by a small boy in the shape of Kitenet jnr it’s a shame I didn’t think to put him to gainful employment for once …
Photos for identifying wildlife Following discussion of the pros and cons of using digital photos for wildlife identification we spent some time exploring iSpot (you will be unsurprised to hear!), and what the site does to encourage proper documentation of photo-records and their identification. We also looked in on the iSpot identification keys.
Online recording Next up was online recording, focusing on Indicia and Birdtrack. Like iSpot, Indicia is one of the projects from OPAL, and it provides a toolkit for adding online recording to an existing website. There are an increasing number of effective recording systems being set up with Indicia, including for the British Dragonfly Society and the BBC’s version of the UK Ladybird Survey.
Birdtrack has been around for a while now, developed by the British Trust for Ornithology and partners, and it really is a superb way of making bird records useful both to you as recorder, and to the conservation organisations that can make use of your data. I’ve only recently started adding my bird records to the site (I’m not much of a birder, so it’s not been a great loss to them!), and am really impressed with the way that Birdtrack handles a range of different types of recording, and provides excellent feedback.
Twitter, Facebook, Google+, blogs: time well-spent, or time, well, just spent? We looked at just a few examples here including:
The spot in question is Lempke’s Gold Spot, a rather lovely moth named after the Dutch lepidopterist, B.J. Lempke, who I believe was the first to discover this species in Europe (it had long been known in the USA). In Britain it’s mostly found in the northern half of the country, but there are a few records for the south.
Earlier today, Roy Leverton (author of the excellent Enjoying Moths) contacted me, in my capacity as Berkshire county moth recorder, regarding a potential Berkshire record of Lempke’s Gold Spot. This was published in a note by R.F. Bretherton, in the Entomologist’s Record for 1966 (available via the Biodiversity Heritage Library). In the note Bretherton refers to discovering that a specimen from his garden in Cumnor Hill, near Oxford, in 1940 had turned out to be Lempke’s Gold Spot, a species that had only recently been recognised as European at the time of the note.
I had no record for Lempke’s Gold Spot on the Berkshire database, and the species is not included in Brian Baker’s book on the county’s moths either, so this could have constituted a new species, the 638th, for the county list – always an enticing prospect! However, the question arises why Baker did not include the record in his book; many of Bretherton’s records were included, and Bretherton’s moth collection went to Reading Museum on his death, the museum for which Baker was natural history curator for many years, and retained an active interest in after his retirement.
So I am left wondering whether Baker saw the Lempke’s Gold Spot record or specimen and rejected it, or whether it didn’t get into his book because he was simply unaware of it. The ‘normal’ Gold Spot is very similar to Lempke’s Gold Spot (sometimes needing dissection to distinguish the two), and in Bretherton’s article he states that the specimen was of a worn individual, so there is an element of doubt.
What all this adds up to is that, unfortunately, the verdict has to be “not proven”, and the idea of Lempke’s Gold Spot being a Berkshire moth must remain an intriguing possibility. If only we could travel back to 1940 and have a look round at the habitats then available.