Patchwork Advice Sought (1 Viewer)

I have been wondering in what simple ways we can compare our worldwide patches and perhaps learn something more about the birds we see. I have begun a collection of our patch maps and birdlists, and have just set out to record each patch's size and proportions of ground cover, because I suppose that, beyond the geographical location, these would be the most basic variables determining what birds a patch supports.

I wonder if I could get some opinions on how minimal yet meaningful a universal key I could devise for patch surface cover. This is not a scientific study, so I don't want to get into classifications like 'cool-temperate broad-leaved deciduous Quercus/Fagus community', which are too region-specific anyway-- I'm looking for a small set of terms that are as universally applicable as possible, yet reasonably cover the variety in our patches. Could I get away with something like:

(1) forest, (2) parkland/grassland/cultivated, (3) shubbery/hedge/bush, (4) marsh/swamp/bog land, (5) fresh water, (6) salt water, and (7) urban/suburban/paved?

Any bright ideas?

I see your problem - if I look at my own local patch it contains fresh water, shrubbery, grassland and urban areas and its not such a big patch!
Not sure how you can categorise, what type of comparisons are you wanting to make?

Why does man have this desire to order things?
What is the origin of your poem at the end by the way?

Regards

James

Charles,
I thought that you had put this thread in the wrong forum when I saw the title and associated the 'patchwork' with this sewing/handicraft pastime.3

Seriously though, I think you are on the right lines with your 1 to 7 list with a bit of tweaking. For example I think that you need to differentiate between broad-leafed forest and coniferous forest or a mixture of the two. I agree that it is not necessary to go as far as the detailed, almost micro-habitats. I am sure there will be other thoughts forthcoming and I will keep thinking. It certainly would be a great idea to have a mental picture of the habitats of local patches. It is one thing to know that member X lives in Arizona and that their local patch is the park in the middle of the city but most will not be able to visualise this parkland and may even have an erroneous guess at the habitat. I will contibute my local patch details when the ground rules are agreed.


Colin

Hi Charles-seems like a pretty comprehensive list.

You could maybe add estuary (somewhere between 5 and 6 I guess) or maybe also break down number 6 ( saltwater) to estuary/rocky coast/sand and shingle. Just a thought.

My patch has parkland, concrete, 3 smallish rivers with tiny areas of reedbed, large mixed forest, rocky and sandy coastline and some scrubland. Guess most of this could be incorporated into your original list......

I like the idea of including a map, but it isn't so easy - in Britain at least, maps are crown copyright, and the Ordnance Survey is likely to come down on you like a ton of bricks if you start posting scans of their maps on the internet.

Other essentials:
area, latitude, longitude, altitude. Metric figures preferred!

Agreed individual plant species are not usually significant, though they are sometimes, e.g., mention of a reedbed automatically indicates an area of Phragmites australis, and certain tree species can influence whether certain birds are common or not.

If available, an aerial photo is great.

Michael

This is an interesting idea of yours Charles. On a global scale it is tricky to develop some broad catagories for habitat types but you might want to consider altitude, and desert landscapes.

Migratory birds might make your figures look somewhat strange. I can think of places on the east coast of England that support wonderful species lists but are rather limited in breeding and wintering habitat. You might want to factor-in the effect of migratory hotspots when comparing patches.

This is getting to sound all very mathmatical, and perhaps something for Birdman to exercise his little grey cells over.

Dave

Sounds like quite an undertaking, but it will be very interesting to see the results, I for one would like to know if someone in a different location (country) that has a similar habitat, will get the same range of species (obviously not the exact same birds).

I have been carrying out a study of the tetrad (2 times 2 km square) where I live in Surrey, UK, over the last three years. For the record I assessed the habitat as:

* Farm land 200 hectares (grazing and arable)
* Set-aside 69 hectares (meadows mown annually with extensive rank hedgerows and a small damp meadow)
* Built-up area 68 hectares (high to medium density housing, a small industrial estate and a Tandridge Disctrict Council yard)
* Woodland 32 hectares (almost entirely deciduous, much of it mature with oak predominating)
* Water 6 hectares (several ponds, the largest five of which are used by fishermen, and a small brook which is lined with elders and willows)
* Other 25 hectares (a playing-field, a sewage works)

I don't suppose this helps much!
BTW I've recorded 103 species during that time in 'my' tetrad.
Good luck
Ken

Sounds rather difficult!.
Fresh water can be so diverse. Fr instance
Fast running: streams, rivers.
slow running: streams, rivers.
Still. Man made, Large Reservoirs, Gravel Pits, canals etc
Still. Natural. Ponds, Lakes, Meres, Lochs etc.

Sorry.

I'm one of those people who see the problems, not the challenges in life.
But keep on trying, I,m sure it can be done.
Micheals idea of area, latitude, longitude, altitude. would give an indication whether water was fast/slow etc!.

Personally I think you've got the level of classification about right, but thats coming from someone with little experience of such things - and therein maybe lies a problem.
Drawing a line between not enough info & too much info is probably different for each of us.

But, yes an interesting idea and I'm sure somewhere there's a concensus of opinion.

Just the kind of responses I'd hoped for, thank you!

James, I'm not sure what kind of comparisons I want to make, I just want to try to be ready if one comes upon me unawares. One example I mentioned to Birdman is: you have Eurasian Jays and I have Eurasian Jays-- are the population densities similar in England and Japan and wherever else patches include this widespread species? (I only have one pair in what I feel is a big wood for only 2 birds.) Or, as Ashley suggests, which are counterpart species in topographically similar habitats? (To respond to your asides-- I think Nature is already ordered, Man just wants to document it. The couplet is from Ezra Pound's translation of 'The Seafarer', the early Anglo-Saxon pelagic trip report.)

I agree, Colin, that coniferous/deciduous is a pretty basic division-- that's what I wrote down at first; it also leads us to temperate/tropical, open/closed, mature/transitional, etc. Stu, your comments too suggest I may have to diversify a bit more. 'Saltwater' alone doesn't exactly do it, does it, when we have one patch in the middle of the North Sea! But contrariwise I'm not sure I need both lakes and lochs, Alan-- is there a significant difference? That's my point: can I find a useful line between over- and under-classification for worldwide purposes? It varies with our opinions, as Carlos says, that's why I asked for yours, to see whether there can be a reasonable consensus, or whether it's all in my head.

Michael, I don't think patchers NEED to post any kind of copyrighted map, as attractive as it might be. I'm just working up an outline drawing from a city road map myself. As long as it clearly shows others the main features of your patch. Heck, Surreybirder's description is fine without a map! On the other hand, your aerial map is very revealing of the area, without words. Absolutely-- area, lat-long, altitude. Terrain?

Terrain. Desert. Hmm, yes. Which takes us to prairie, montane, alpine, riverine and lacustrine. Could 'desert' be subsumed in some sort of 'minimal ground cover' with golf course and pavement? No, I suppose not.

Migration routes are a whole different kettle of fish, and I guess we just add that to the other characters (altitude, location, etc.) Perhaps just as a significant addendum to location.

This is fruitful (for me, anyway). Thank you again. Any other quarters to be heard from? NA? OZ?

Charles

Thanks for the info. I am not sure I agree that nature is already ordered. If it is then I think it is on a scale that we are not capable of comprehending. We can't even decide amongst ourselves what constitutes a species!

Regards James

Perhaps we are not subtle enough... But I seem to be drifting into epistemology, a pursuit I gave up when I gave up chess.

On the other hand, I love the elusiveness of the Species, a will-o-the-wisp worthy but unlikely of capture. Anyway, the thrill is in the chase.

One important thing that's not been mentioned yet - whether an area of woodland, grassland, etc., is grazed, or mown, or has dense ground vegetation. That affects the bird species mix a lot.

Charles,
Talking of early pelagic trip experiences, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records dragons seen off the Northumberland coast in one year.

Michael

Dragon sightings! Can I start a list? Mythological birds (creatures) seen-- lessee... dragons, phoenixes (phoenices?), pegasuses (pegasi?), rocs (rockettes?)...