We are living in a biodiversity crisis, with many species shrinking in numbers and at risk of going extinct. To put a stop to, or at least slow down this seemingly inevitable fall into the abyss for many of the world’s species, one action that is considered effective is establishing protected areas.
“A protected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” IUCN Definition, 2008
When we imagine a protected area, we typically picture a pristine natural environment with gorgeous landscapes, thriving diversity of wildlife, and no human beings. The reality, however, is strikingly different, especially in Europe where very few locations have never been used by humans. In fact, most protected areas are under pressure from human activities.
The pressure comes in different forms: from farming to roads, from urbanization to hunting, from mining to logging etc.. We may expect that some of those threats are more harmful than others. We may also expect that some of those threats are more “central” than others. In other words, that some threats may be sources of other types of pressures. A classic example is roads, which favour the spread of invasive species and increase hunting. New roads make it easier for hunters to access more land to hunt on. If we want to reduce hunting, we could well reduce access to areas that host endangered species.
In the European Union (EU), protected areas are managed through an integrated network called Nature 2000, which includes over 27,000 land and marine protected areas and covers over 1.1 million square kilometres, an area almost four times the size of Italy. The EU collects an impressive amount of information about its protected areas. For example, data on protected species, habitats, what management actions are carried out, and importantly human activities. Remarkably, all this data is made openly available (it can be downloaded here)!
We used this data and we tried to identify relationships between human threats, hoping to provide guidance for a better management of these sites.
Map of the terrestrial Natura 2000 sites used in the study, shown in dark green colour.
By analysing the data from the EU, we found that many of the human threats recorded within the Natura 2000 network are related with each other. For example, as introduced earlier, we observed that the presence of ’roads, paths and railroads’ is strongly related with ’hunting and collection of wild animals’. We also observed that ’Urbanised areas, human habitation’ is related threats such as ’Fire and fire suppression’, ’Introduced genetic material, GMO’, and ’Taking/removal of terrestrial plants’, among others. In these examples, roads and urban areas are likely acting as sources of the other types of threats. Generally, we found that threats related to agriculture and urbanization are more frequently related with other threats. In practical terms, it means that if we are going to eliminate, or at least reduce the presence, of those types of human activities we will be more likely to also reduce other threats that are associated to them. We can kill two birds with one stone, but now the birds are nasty human activities that harm ecosystems and biodiversity. Minimizing threats that are strongly related with others should be prioritized.
The full article “Examining the co-occurrences of human threats within terrestrial protected areas“, published in Ambio, can be accessed here.
All references to the color green are impossible to avoid if we want to preserve or improve the environment. It is clear that “going green” is in, but which shade of green should we look at? There is the ‘bright electric green’, commonly posed on renewable energy advertisements and infographics. There is also the ‘deep forest green’ often pledged in biodiversity conservation campaigns. However, the question is, can we generate an environmental plan that actually delivers an appealing blend of both ‘electric’ and ‘deep forest’ green?
In our recent work, we set out to determine what the optimal shade of green for Ireland’s future is. Like many countries, Ireland recognizes the need to urgently transition to a low-carbon economy to avoid the devastating impacts of unimpeded climate change. To meet our decarbonisation goals, Ireland has developed a Climate Action Plan 1. The goal of the Climate Action Plan is to achieve a net zero carbon energy system for Irish society by 2050. Specific actions include increasing the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources from 30% to 80% by 2030, establishing 8,000 hectares of newly planted trees per year, and funding the restoration and rehabilitation of peatlands. So it seems that the solution is quite straightforward – convert all current land uses to renewable energy infrastructure, new forests, and peatlands. Problem solved?!
Not so fast… In addition to the climate crisis, we are also facing an equally urgent biodiversity crisis. These two green problems can’t be solved independently. The biodiversity and climate crises are entwined in a complex system of feedbacks, with biodiversity part of the Earth system regulating climate, and climate in turn determining biodiversity patterns and trajectories. Ireland is a trailblazer in acknowledging that a synergistic solution is needed, and in May 2019, became the 2nd country worldwide to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency (Dáil Éireann, 2019). However, recognizing that climate and biodiversity require a coordinated response is only a first step. Implementation is going to be far more complicated. We need a plan, and we need it fast.
To come up with the plan that would be the best for both climate and biodiversity, we went through the major goals of the Climate Action Plan and reviewed the scientific literature to determine how to meet those objectives in the most biodiversity friendly way possible. We identified the major threats that climate actions, such as increased renewable energy infrastructure, could impose on biodiversity (Figure 1) 2.
Figure 1. Mechanisms for climate actions which impact biodiversity. We outline major mechanisms that could impact biodiversity during the three primary life stages of renewable energy facilities: construction, operation, and decommissioning. From Gorman et al, 2023.
Along the way, we also found that many of the proposed climate actions can be implemented in ways that don’t harm biodiversity, but actually promote biodiversity: our “win-wins”. For Ireland, these include increasing offshore wind capacity, rehabilitating natural areas surrounding onshore wind turbines and limiting the development of solar photovoltaics to where humans have already erected structures, the so-called “built” environment (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Some examples of Ireland’s 2 “win-wins” for climate action and promoting biodiversity.
Ultimately, biodiversity-friendly renewable energy can be achieved by prioritizing renewables that are the least damaging and ensuring that infrastructure development is carried out as sensitively as possible in order to protect, restore, and enhance biodiversity. This could look different depending on where in the environment we are talking about, which is why choosing an appropriate site for each method is critical – we need a plan!
We hope that this work can form the basis for that plan for Ireland and stimulate broader discussions on what this looks like for other countries. By synergistically mitigating both our climate and biodiversity crises, we can ensure that Ireland’s future is Emerald Green.
About the author: Courtney Gorman is a postdoctoral researcher and project manager for the Nature+Energy project at Trinity College Dublin. She has a PhD in Biology from the University of Konstanz in Germany.
References:
1. Government of Ireland. Climate Action Plan. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ccb2e0-the-climate-action-plan-2019/ (2021).
2. Gorman, C. E. et al. Reconciling climate action with the need for biodiversity protection, restoration and rehabilitation. Science of The Total Environment 857, 159316 (2023).
Blog amended from first publication on Campus Buzz.
As the semester flies by, the EcoEvo annual Photo Competition draws ever closer!
The 2022/2023 showcasing will be the sixth instalment in the series and if previous years are anything to go by, the judges will have an extremely tough time choosing a winner. Year on year, the bar seems to have risen ever higher so we’re excited to see what you have in store for us!
For those of you in the dark, the EcoEvo Photo Competition is one of the most highly anticipated events of the year for Botany and Zoology, with the winner receiving prestige and respect from the Trinity Natural Sciences cohort. If that isn’t enough for you, the photo that claims first prize also gets to be shown off for year, becoming the new cover photo for the EcoEvo Blog and profile image on all social media pages. This competition gives us all a chance to present the amazing and strange snippets of our research that often miss out on the opportunity to be shared, so send us on whatever you’ve got!
Katrin Schertenleib captured a beautiful moment between two adult Puffins (Fratercula arctic) off the coast of Wexford on the Great Saltee island last year. Currently the poster image for the EcoEvo blog, is it soon to be succeeded by the 2022/23 winner! Clickhere to see the other entries from last year’s Photo Competition
To enter into the competition, all you have to do is send your photo along with a short caption and/or story to the EcoEvo email account (ecoevoblog@gmail.com). Following on from the successful system of previous years, the entries will be anonymized and sent to an unbiased third party to be judged, ensuring that an equal and fair opportunity is given to each and every participant.
Winners From Earlier Competitions
The five previous exhibitions have each produced a fantastic array of photos. With snapshots coming from the corners of Southeast Sulawesi to the Galapagos Islands and even up to high latitudes of the Arctic. Members of Botany and Zoology have brought us to some of the most amazing and beautiful landscapes on Earth.
To see the 2017 Photo Competition entries, clickhere
The winner of the inaugural Photo Competition back in 2017 stole the show with a wandering Alpine Salamander (Salamandra atra). This little guy was captured by Alain Finn high up in the Swiss Alps.
To see the 2018 Photo competition entries, click here
Dr Laura Russo was next to snatch first prize in 2018, with the winning snapshot being taken closer to home. This chocolate mining bee (Andrena scotica) found a comfy spot on Laura in the Trinity Botanic Gardens at Darty.
To see the 2019 Photo competition entries, click here
Jenny Bortoluzzi claimed the 2019 win with an incredible photo from her expedition to the high Arctic where she and her team had the once in a lifetime opportunity to see a female polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in her natural environment. While stunningly beautiful, this image also strikes a chord – a daunting reminder of the uncertain future of the polar regions.
To see the 2020 Photo competition entries, click here
A male Rufous-tailed hummingbird (Amazilia tzacatl) snatched the win in the 2020 showcasing of the Photo Competition, and rightfully so! These tiny birds are notoriously difficult to photograph but Floriane O’Keeffe managed to capture one mid-flight, an impressive feat.
We hope that seeing some of the past winners and runners up strikes ambition within you to photograph everything in the natural world around you. With all that said and done we eagerly await your submissions! Please send them in before the end of December. Winner to be announced in the New Year.
We wish you all the best of luck in the sixth annual EcoEvo Photo Competition!
Our understanding of how species interact and evolve depends on accurate knowledge of the species that exist on Earth. There are still many species to be identified, however, even in evolutionarily significant regions such as Wallacea in central Indonesia, site of Alfred Russel Wallace’s pioneering work. Our new paper, completed jointly with researchers from Universitas Halu Oleo and just published in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, draws on work carried out in Wallacea to identify multiple unrecognised species in the beautiful sunbird family. Made using modern genetic, acoustic, and statistical techniques, these discoveries add to our understanding of how life evolved in this region and reinforce some of Wallace’s original ideas.
The key discovery is the “Wakatobi Sunbird Cinnyris infrenatus”, a species endemic to the small islands of the Wakatobi archipelago, off Southeast Sulawesi in central Indonesia. The Wakatobi Islands have been separated from other landmasses since they first rose out of the sea, and so there has been plenty of time for their populations to evolve in isolation and produce endemic taxa, found nowhere else on Earth. The Wakatobi Islands have been recognised as a Key Biodiversity Area for their importance to the survival of biodiversity. The Wakatobi Sunbird is the latest endemic species to be identified by our research group, following previous work on the Wakatobi Flowerpecker and the double discovery of the Wakatobi White-eye and Wangi-wangi White-eye. It’s important that we know all of the species of Southeast Sulawesi and the Wakatobi Islands, because this region acts as a “natural laboratory” for the study of evolutionary processes such as cryptic sexual dimorphism, the “supertramp strategy”, and the links between behaviour and population divergence. The Wakatobi Sunbird is currently treated as a subspecies of the widespread Olive-backed Sunbird (Cinnyris jugularis), but our findings indicate that the Olive-backed Sunbird is actually made up of at least 4 reproductively isolated species.
Male Olive-backed Sunbirds from Sulawesi and nearby islands. Our new paper supports splitting this population as the “Sahul Sunbird (Cinnyris clementiae)”.
Male Wakatobi Sunbirds. This population is currently viewed as a subspecies of the Olive-backed Sunbird, but the genetic divergence we have found, along with its darker plumage, shorter wings, and different calls, support its recognition as a new species.
Female Olive-backed Sunbirds (“Sahul Sunbirds”) from Sulawesi and nearby islands. Sunbirds are sexually dimorphic, with the feales usually showing simpler plumage than the males.
Female Wakatobi Sunbirds. The analysis of plumage in our study used male birds, following previous taxonomic work on subirds.
The sunbirds (Nectariniidae) fill a similar niche in Africa, Asia, and Australia to the hummingbirds of the Americas. They are small birds with long bills that help them extract nectar from flowers. Like the hummingbirds, many sunbirds (males particularly) exhibit brightly coloured plumage, with beautiful iridescent or “metallic” feathers that reflect the sunlight. In fact, the naturalist William Jardine tells us in his 1843 volume on the sunbirds that sunbirds get their name “from their brightly-tinted dress, appearing in higher splendour when played on by the sun-beams”. For hundreds of years, ornithologists have used the patterns and colours of these feathers to identify sunbird species. Now, however, we can combine multiple forms of data to uncover patterns that weren’t clear from plumage alone. Our paper also looked at the Black Sunbird (Leptocoma aspasia), a species with male plumage that’s hard to examine because it mostly looks jet-black, except when the sun hits it in the right way to reveal other colours. We found a genetic split in this species that had not been suggested by any previous work, probably due to its plumage being less informative.
Male Black Sunbird (Leptocoma aspasia).
Female Black Sunbird (Leptocoma aspasia)
Finding species like these isn’t just interesting for its own sake. It is also our best evidence to understand how evolution produces new species. This is particularly interesting in a region like Wallacea, which played such a significant role in the development of evolutionary biology. The observations that Wallace made around this region led him to discover evolution by natural selection, work which was published jointly with Charles Darwin in 1858 in the same journal where our sunbird paper has just appeared.
One of the observations that inspired Wallace’s evolutionary thinking was the importance of biogeographic barriers. Wallace noticed that the animals found on Sulawesi are markedly different from those on neighbouring Borneo, evidence that species would evolve on one island and then have difficulty crossing over. This boundary came to be known as Wallace’s Line. We now understand that it represents the beginning of the deep waters of the Wallacea region, which persisted even when sea levels were lower, unlike the shallower waters of the adjoining Sunda Shelf which gave rise to land bridges. A similar barrier to the east came to be known as Lydekker’s Line. As seen in the map below, the range of the Olive-backed Sunbird (in yellow) is currently thought to cross both Wallace’s Line and Lydekker’s Line, while the Black Sunbird (in purple) stops at Wallace’s Line but crosses Lydekker’s Line. It’s quite remarkable to imagine these dainty little birds maintaining gene flow across barriers which block so many other organisms! Our work, however, has indicated that the Olive-backed Sunbird populations on either side of Wallace’s Line actually represent separate species. The same is true of Black Sunbird populations divided by Lydekker’s Line. Modern evidence has actually reinforced Wallace’s original ideas, showing once again that these Lines represent significant biogeographic barriers that block gene flow in most animals.
Map showing populations sampled for our new paper. We found evidence that the Olive-backed Sunbird is actually composed of separate species in the Philippines (“Garden Sunbird”). the Sunda Shelf (“Ornate Sunbird”), the Wakatobi Islands (“Wakatobi Sunbird”), and the islands from Sulawesi to the Sahul Shelf (“Sahul Sunbird”). We also found that Black Sunbirds in New Guinea are strongly genetically divergent from those in Sulawesi. These findings reinforce the importance of biogeographic barriers like Wallace’s Line and Lydekker’s Line to evolution.
Both evolutionary biologists and ecologists are gaining new insights from large datasets on the traits and genomics of species. However, as these datasets are organised by species, they rely on our species lists being accurate in the first place. Data from “species” like the Olive-backed Sunbird or Black Sunbird might prove misleading, as each of these actually represent multiple species. Meanwhile, a small population like that of the Wakatobi Sunbird may not be included in such a dataset at all if it isn’t recognised as a species.
To quote an 1863 paper by Wallace, the world’s species represent “the individual letters which go to make up one of the volumes of our earth’s history and, as a few lost letters may make a sentence unintelligible, so the extinction of the numerous forms of life which the progress of cultivation invariably entails will necessarily render obscure this invaluable record of the past”. It is therefore an irrevocable loss to the world, to humanity, and to science when a species goes extinct while still unrecognised, “uncared for and unknown”.
Hoga, one of the Wakatobi Islands where sunbirds were sampled for this study. It has been a privilege to see such beautiful places and animals for this research.
While the Wakatobi Islands are biogeographically “remote” due to their small size and the permanent water barriers that surround them, it is worth noting that they are not the stereotypical “desert islands” Western readers may imagine. The islands have been part of important shipping lanes since at least the 14th century, and the people of the Wakatobi are known for their maritime traditions and unique language. As Dr David Kelly, the second author on the recent paper remarked: “The identification of the Wakatobi Sunbird serves to remind us that biodiversity is everywhere. This bird wasn’t found in a remote rainforest, but along the scrubby margins of busy towns and villages. Let us hope the children of the Wakatobi will be able to enjoy these special birds for generations to come.”
A relief from Borobudur Temple on Java, built over 1000 years ago. The birds in the yellow boxes were identified as Olive-backed Sunbirds by Ashari et al. (2021). Their fascinating paper is available at https://li01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tnh/article/view/253401
The beauty of the sunbirds has attracted scientists and artists for many years. Elsewhere in Indonesia, Java’s Borobudur (the largest Buddhist temple in the world, constructed in the 8th or 9th century CE) displays carvings of Olive-backed Sunbirds drinking nectar on its walls. The researchers who identified these carvings hypothesise that this symbolises the Buddhist ideal of enlightenment. Over a thousand years later, sunbirds are still enlightening us on the origin of species.
Female (top) and male (bottom) Olive-backed Sunbirds, from Shelley’s monograph, published 1876-1880 and available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library at https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.53516. Our new paper has found that the Olive-backed Sunbird is actually made up of at least four separate species.
The wildflower meadow outside the front gates of Trinity College Dublin.
In February 2020, a Trinity Green Campus poll was held amongst Trinity College Dublin (TCD) staff and students to convert the lawns of Front Gate into a wildflower meadow. Of the 13,850 people who voted, 12,496 voted in favour, a 90% majority. This was the largest number of participants that Trinity Green Campus had ever had, likely due to the extensive communications regarding the campaign, with features being included on local, national, and international news channels. The project has been deemed a success with support from both the public and TCD community and it continues to flourish outside the historic Front Gate of TCD. The TCD wildflower meadow is one of many similar “rewilding” projects that are currently being undertaken to increase biodiversity in urban and rural spaces but why are they such a popular rewilding choice? And how can we ensure their success?
Let’s take it that any project, ecological or otherwise, can be deemed successful if it has fulfilled the goals that it set out to achieve. The majority of rewilding and restoration projects aim to introduce species to an ecosystem as a way of restoring ecosystem functions and re-establishing natural processes that existed previously. In the case of wildflower meadows, the species being introduced are herbaceous plants and the ecosystem functions that they aim to restore usually relate to pollination or biodiversity, although this is not always the case. Even the broadest generalisation of the aims of wildflower meadows lacks clarity on the type of ecosystem functions that are expected to be restored. This is due to the aims of any restoration effort being dependent on the social and cultural views of the people carrying out or interacting with the project. Therefore, each individual wildflower meadow project must define the unique aims pertaining to it before a decision can be made on its success.
The two most documented spatial differences are between North America and Europe. In North America, the landscapes that were present before European colonisers have long been idolised and perpetuated as the “perfect wilderness,” with many attempts being made to conserve and restore these ecosystem types. As such, projects which aim to restore pre-colonisation landscapes are often deemed to be successful and are well received by the public. Large wildflower meadows that are re-planted in areas that previously were inhabited by similar species and vegetative communities are also deemed successful and serve as a reminder of the great prairies and grasslands of 1500’s North America. However, when urban wildflower meadows are planted many North Americans question whether it is truly restoration, since there were no previous wildflower meadows present here which can be said to be restored. Therefore, if the aim of this example is to be an act of restoration or rewilding the project is unable to be successful.
Contrasting to this, European rewilding does not explicitly try to recreate a single period, owing to the long established agricultural and industrial disturbance that has been occurring in the area since ~7000 B.C.. Therefore, the matter of projects emulating an exact period does not cause the same obstacles to success that are seen in North America. Instead, a range of dates are replicated, from Pleistocene to pre-industrial. There is a much lesser demand for projects on the large scales seen in North America, with the reintroduction of large carnivores causing public outcry. When concerning wildflower meadows, small pockets of pre-existing meadows or similar habitats are still naturally established in Europe, such as hedgerows and agricultural wildflower meadows. Thus, it is easier for people to view wildflower meadows projects as restoration.
Education also plays a key role in the success of wildflower meadows. Some studies have shown that the public perceives nature as consisting of trees and forested areas, and so projects that remove trees, even for positive environmental reasons, are perceived negatively. Other studies, however, have shown contrasting results, recording preferences towards annuals over larger trees or fruit plants. Interestingly, this same study also recorded that 54% of participants did not know what wildflowers were. This indicates that asking the public whether they prefer wildflowers over trees may not give accurate data as the responders are much more familiar with one subject over the other. Where images were shown, participants revealed a preference for wildflower meadows over images of herbaceous and formal bedding styles. The degree to which they preferred wildflower meadows over other bedding styles increased with an increase of plant species richness. This is a positive sign for those who wish to use wildflower meadows to restore pollinator and biodiversity functions, as it suggests that there should be public support of the projects if the public are adequately informed on wildflower meadows.
The TCD wildflower meadow project had clear goals, aiming to demonstrate that grass lawns were not the only option for planting in a formal setting. By prioritising the goal of informing the public on the project aims, TCD reduced arguments that may have otherwise arisen over the success of the project. Notably, before the project began, the idea was put to a vote by the staff and students at the college. As mentioned previously, the poll was hugely successful likely due to the amount of publicity it received. In order to combat any doubt surrounding the use of non-native species, information was provided about the reasoning for including non-native species and why they would be beneficial to the project, for example, the increased pollination potential of the site and the aesthetic benefits of the species chosen. The clear communication regarding the project appears to have ensured the wildflower meadows success. The public support for a wildflower project in the heart of the capital city centre could also in part be due to the site being in Europe. Alternatively, the public support could be due to the project being planted shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic, which has been hypothesised to have increased public appreciation for green spaces. Many of the questions posed remain unanswered due to the modernity of the topic and rapidly shifting public opinions. As developments occur, both academically and publicly, more light will be shed on the success of wildflower meadows and how projects can be best implemented. However, for now, debates on the topic should be encouraged and the public should be involved in the conversation. Wildflower meadows have a huge potential to educate people about their environment and can be implemented on many scales, being made suitable to whichever environment is present. The people managing these projects should consider the ecological and social environment within which they work and make efforts to adapt to the unique environment in which they may find themselves. There is plentiful research into the social dynamics of rewilding and restoration projects and so it can be concluded that the issue lies with project managers and a potential lack of consideration of the social factors at hand.
Aoife is a final year Environmental Sciences student at Trinity College Dublin who recently completed her undergraduate thesis with Dr Piggott and Dr Penk. She is interested in urban rewilding and quantitative ecology and hopes to work in these areas in the future.
Moving from Dublin City to rural Ireland as a child was a bit of a shock to my system. Up to that moment I had grown up surrounded by pavement and tall dull buildings as far as the eye could see, however, now I lived in a house surrounded by fields upon fields of cattle and crops. I thought I lived in an area surrounded by nature, but it wasn’t until I got older that I realised the endless stretches of fields around me all contained the same few species.
As a child, I gave little thought to this homogeneity. The one thing around me that did catch my attention was the large deserted building site at the back of my house. Like many, we moved into a brand new housing estate during the Celtic Tiger, only for the inevitable bust that occurred shortly after we moved in to halt the construction on the rest of the estate. As children, we were always warned to stay away from the empty site. Filled with abandoned equipment and precarious structures, the place was a death trap. For years, despite the odd bonfire on Halloween, the site remained virtually untouched. Forever to be labelled an eyesore. A waste of land.
That was until I went to university to study Zoology and took a module in Restoration Ecology. During this time, I learned that Mother Nature may not have been as idle over the many years that construction companies have been. The term brownfield site came up on my radar and I realised that maybe that eyesore at the back of my estate might hold more value than I previously believed.
On-site images of the Brownfield site. Credit: Aoife Cahill
What are brownfield sites?
Brownfield sites have been defined as “land that was previously developed for housing or industry but has since been abandoned and recolonised by different ecological assemblages” [1]. While these sites are typically described as “dangerous” or “eyesores” and can have negative connotations to them, research has shown that these brownfields are highly important for biodiversity as they are capable of harbouring rich and sophisticated ecosystems capable of supporting rare and threatened species.
While governments are starting to acknowledge the importance of brownfields and the role they play in protecting biodiversity, such as the UK government adding some brownfield sites to its list of priority sites listed in its Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act), many of these sites still face threats of development [2].
There are many types of brownfield sites, with the two most important broad categories being described as wetland or dry ground. Wetland brownfields are important as they provide refuge for waterbirds, whose natural habitat availability has been shrinking. Dry ground sites, are typically well-drained, poor in nutrients and sometimes contaminated and have been described by conservationists as highly important for providing havens for rare or endangered species [3].
Why are brownfields important for rural Ireland?
The expansion and intensification of agricultural practices have been closely linked to the depletion of biodiversity. It has been suggested that as much as 23% of species diversity once associated with European farmland has been lost during the period 1970 and 2000 [4]. It has become clear that biodiversity plays a fundamental role in sustainable agricultural systems. It has also been determined that increasing habitat heterogeneity in the rural landscape would play an important role in reversing the decline in farmland bird species. So if it has been agreed that more diverse landscapes in rural Ireland would benefit biodiversity and in turn would have a positive impact on agriculture, perhaps it would be beneficial to not only focus on increasing biodiversity on agricultural land but also factor in the importance of brownfield sites that have become widespread across Ireland since the 2010s when a surge in ghost estates, and in turn abandoned building sites, was seen in rural areas.
Of course, it’s important to stress the importance of protecting and promoting biodiversity on agricultural land, but maybe we shouldn’t ignore the potential biodiversity goldmines that we have potentially been casting scornful looks at for the past decade.
The brownfield site next door
At the beginning of the summer, I contacted Dr Marcus Collier and the Connecting Nature project about summer research opportunities and we got on the topic of the abandoned building site in my estate. We concluded that I had the opportunity to conduct research right on my doorstep. Once we worked through the logistics of the site location we came up with a plan. The plan for the research was to create a habitat map of the site, conduct botanical, invertebrate pollinator and bird surveys, and compare this to similar surveys conducted in a neighbouring agricultural field. This research aimed to bring attention to brownfield sites and to show that they can play an important role in conjunction with sustainable agricultural practices to increase the heterogeneity of the Irish rural landscape to protect and promote biodiversity.
ArcMap 10.7.1 was used to create the habitat map and habitats were classified according to Fossitt (2000) – A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. Once the map was completed, I decided that to get a complete picture of the brownfield site and the potential species it was home to, botanical surveys of multiple habitat types were required. Botanical surveys of grassland (GS2), hedgerows (WL1) and recolonising bare ground (ED3) were conducted. Transect sampling methods were used to record invertebrate and bird species. The same methods were used to study an improved agricultural grassland (GA1) directly beside the brownfield.
Habitat map of the site. Credit: Aoife Cahill
So on a few sunny days in June 2021, I went out into the field with a homemade quadrat, a camera, and a pen and paper to conduct this research.
What was found?
The results of the botanical surveys for each habitat type within the site were interesting because there was minimal overlapping in species types recorded in each habitat.
Each habitat type had a distinct set of botanical species that weren’t found in the others. The recolonising bare ground was recorded to have the highest number of plant species. A survey of a neighbouring agricultural site showed very little diversity in plant species, with perennial ryegrass dominating the majority of the site. Several grass species were recorded in the brownfield site, including Yorkshire fog (H. lanatus) and sweet grass (H. odorata).
Number of plant species found at each habitat type. Credit: Aoife Cahill
The invertebrate pollinator survey also indicated the high biodiversity of the site, in which a range of bees, butterflies, and moths was recorded. Bees were the highest recorded species including the common carder (B. pascuorum), buff-tailed bumblebee (B. terrestris), and garden bumblebee (B. hortorum). Common blue (P. icarus), large white (P. brassicae), and small tortoiseshell (A. urticae) werethe butterfly species identified. One micromoth species, Ancylis badiana, was also recorded. The bird species that were identified included Rooks, Wood pigeons, Starlings, Robins, and Magpies.
Common carder bee (B. pascuorum) (on the left) and common blue butterfly (P. icarus) (on the right) found on-site. Credit: Aoife Cahill
What does it mean?
This field research is important because it could increase community awareness of how important the areas in towns and villages that are deemed to be “eyesores” could unknowingly be. It’s also important because it could be an indicator that brownfield sites could benefit the goal to increase biodiversity in the rural landscape by acting as a mosaic of different habitat types within one site located between large areas of agricultural land. While the main goal would remain to focus on protecting and promoting biodiversity on agricultural land as it makes up the majority of land use in Ireland (roughly 70%), brownfield sites could supplement the actions undertaken. Brownfield sites could benefit rare and endangered species by acting as a refuge when their natural habitats are becoming fewer and further between.
I believe that the potential benefit that brownfield sites could have to protect and promote biodiversity throughout Ireland should be given real consideration. While the land type could be deemed unorthodox, we live in a world that is changing every day and we must keep creating new ways and be open-minded to adapting to this change.
Many of
Earth’s plant and animal species are at imminent risk of extinction. But with
the resources necessary to conserve them so sorely limited, where should
efforts be focused? The term “ecological triage” has been coined for
such decision-making, after the system invented by French army medics to sort patients by
the urgency of their need. This borrowing of metaphor from the Napoleonic and
World Wars is not accidental: in envisaging the damage done to nature by
humanity, you are to think of cannonballs and scorched earth and mustard gas.
If you had asked me a year ago if I had any interest in banking, I probably would have said no. As a natural sciences graduate passionate about sustainable development, it just wasn’t a path I associated with my interests. Yet in March 2019, I set off for Luxembourg to undertake a traineeship at the European Investment Bank (EIB). Not just any bank, the biggest multilateral bank in the world, responsible for lending over EUR 50 billion in 2018 alone.
The reason for this sudden change in direction was discovering a new pilot program at EIB called the “Natural Capital Financing Facility” (NCFF). It seemed like a unique project attempting to use traditional investments to support and conserve Europe’s ecosystems and biodiversity. The interdisciplinary aspect of combining finance with biodiversity, economics with environmental sustainability, really appealed to me and was too good an opportunity to miss. I applied for a traineeship position with the NCFF, crossed my fingers, and a few months later, had packed my bags for Luxembourg!
The header image by Jamie Grant-Fraser shows White-faced Whistling Ducks (Dendrocygna viduata) responding to the appearance of a Madagascar Harrier-hawk (Polyboroides radiatus).
For the past few months, I’d been hearing about this amazing urban wetland oasis. A wildlife haven right in the middle of Tallaght, on the south-west outskirts of Dublin. Every time I bumped into Collie Ennis on campus he was bouncing excitedly about how wonderful this place was and how I should go down there and see all the plants, and the incredible insect life. This sounded so amazing and I was looking forward to planning some insect and plant surveys there next year.
And then I heard this weekend that it’s been destroyed. Obliterated. Annihilated by >1.5m of dredged silt dumped on top of the entire habitat. This was a crushing blow to all those people caring for these wetlands and their wildlife, and the devastation they felt was reflected far and wide. If you haven’t seen the story – it was covered by Irish Times and Joe.ie as well as on Collie’s own Twitter feed.
