1 Reply by Darwyn Sumner (LERC)

  • Darwyn Sumner (LERC)
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 07-06-2006
  • Posts: 176

Re: Biotopes & Natural England

In Recorder we have a standardised list of Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats which was created by the UK Biodiversity Steering Group in 2001. This is therefore a published standard.
We use these descriptions to deploy our services.
We also need to assist in the provision of services for our partners (see LDF topic).
On Natural England's website (e.g. at http://www.english-nature.org.uk/Special/sssi/) it is possible to download a list of statutory sites "Condition of SSSI units" and we get a terrific spreadsheet list of a counties sites, complete with "Main habitats", areas, condition etc..
Natural England seem to be using a different classification which they describe as: "The broadest classification of the feature on the unit selected from a list of habitats based on the BAP Broad Habitat classification".
How very much more useful this list would be if they used the published Recorder list of terms. As an example, the published Recorder list has an item described as  "Lowland beech and yew woodland" and Natural England one termed "Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland".
The two classification systems simply do not match.
Nor are biotopes included amongst the fields in Natural England's downloadable GIS polygon dataset tables.

2 Reply by Gordon Barker

  • Gordon Barker
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 15-05-2006
  • Posts: 344

Re: Biotopes & Natural England

"Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland" is in Recorder, at least in 2002, under Biotope Classification: "Biodiversity Action Plan Broad Habitat Classificat". I would assume that NE use the broad habitats because it allows them to fill in the field for all SSSI units as not all units will have a Priority Habitat. Whether they have more details regarding any Priority Habitats I don't know, but I haven't found them in any of the SSSI condition data I have access to.

Gordon Barker
Biological Survey Data Manager
National Trust

3 Reply by charlesroper

  • charlesroper
  • charlesroper
  • Digital Development Manager
  • Offline
  • From: Field Studies Council
  • Registered: 26-03-2006
  • Posts: 906

Re: Biotopes & Natural England

It would also be useful if, in addition to the spreadsheet, the dataset were published as a Recorder export. Perhaps a project LRCs should undertake in a co-ordinated manner?

Charles

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

charlesroper's Website

4 Reply by Darwyn Sumner (LERC)

  • Darwyn Sumner (LERC)
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 07-06-2006
  • Posts: 176

Re: Biotopes & Natural England

Gordon: what your comments seem to support is the idea of a lack of scientific rigour in these published lists. In addition, whilst the phrases used are similar to the Recorder texts they are not the same (so you cannot use, for example, a database to cross-match the terms to Recorder's published lists) and the glossary clearly states "based on", indicating they are not the same. Your comments also suggest a "nearest match" process. This is no good to us if we wish to provide sound statistics on the areas of BAP habitats and other habitat mapping as is required of us under our LDF obligations.
Charles: That idea would force the kind of standards expected of us in LRCs. Perhaps NE could fund such a project.

5 Reply by Gordon Barker

  • Gordon Barker
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 15-05-2006
  • Posts: 344

Re: Biotopes & Natural England

Looking at some of the county data the Main Habitat of each unit the only difference between the terms used and UK BAP Broad Habitats appears to be the addition of the Earth Heritage category and the subdivision of grassland, heath and woodlands into upland and lowland. I would have thought that it should make it easier to pull out some Priority Habitats but haven't tried.

Of >2000 units I have data for, none deviates from Broad Habitats.

I don't know about a nearest match process, I would think it is more likely to be a deliberate decision to use a simpler system that provides complete coverage at the expense of a loss of detail, which disadvantages those who need the detail.

I assume that the downloadable NE BAP Priority GIS data is not comprehensive?

Gordon

Gordon Barker
Biological Survey Data Manager
National Trust

6 Reply by Darwyn Sumner (LERC)

  • Darwyn Sumner (LERC)
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 07-06-2006
  • Posts: 176

Re: Biotopes & Natural England

Thanks for that, Gordon. Perhaps I shall try to match them up.
The GIS data doesn't have biotope information in the table (at least not in the MapInfo ones I downloaded). To achieve a thematically mapped display in MapInfo which fits alongside our other sites I would have to:
1. Cross match the "Condition" list to Recorder's biotope identifiers
2. Cross match this updated list to the GIS table (might be problems here because the unique identifiers are different formats) (note also that my region's GIS table has first to be extracted from their original 100Km blocks)
3. Update the GIS table with the calculated biotopes.
That's a lot of work with several operations where there is a high likelihood of error.

7 Reply by Gordon Barker

  • Gordon Barker
  • Veteran
  • Offline
  • Registered: 15-05-2006
  • Posts: 344

Re: Biotopes & Natural England

I was thinking that you could run a spatial query in Map Info from the SSSI condition layer against the Lowland Beech (or whichever Priority Habitat) layer to give you an overlap table.

From briefly looking at the metadata/data on Lowland Beech PH it only seems to include woods in the Ancient Woodland Inventory so could miss out some areas.

Apologies if I am a little theoretical, but this is on my list of things to investigate further if i get a quiet moment.

Gordon Barker
Biological Survey Data Manager
National Trust