Research


Most landholder members are involved in some aspect of research, such as recording species, particularly those that are in danger of extinction. This can be a direct contribution or via groups of people hosted by a landholder. Contributions made to British Trust for Ornithology, RSPB, surveys on bats, butterflies, moths and grasshoppers are just a few of the many.

Apps for identification
Bird Ringing
Moths and Moth Trapping - A Quick(ish) Guide
Nocmig: Recording Nocturnal Bird Migration
Reptile Monitoring
Test Project for Biochar Production
Willow Bird Hides

Apps for Identification


Useful Natural History Apps: Briefing Note Produced for KLAW Members by KLAW members.

Although many fantastic ID guides exist on the wildlife of the UK, you don’t always have your copy of ‘The dragonflies of Sussex and Kent’ on you when you most need it! Maybe because of this, apps are becoming a popular way of not only identifying species but also recording them. However, it’s not always easy to know which apps to use, and importantly where any records might go. Some KLAW members have been looking into this and provided useful briefings on their experience of using different apps. Many thanks for Sally Edge for providing the first two useful summaries.

Please email the KLAW Chair using this email address: chair@KLAWonline.co.uk if you are able to contribute to this briefing on Apps. For example, if you have used an identification app yourself and have views on the pros and cons.

The KLAW committee have also consulted Tony Witts of the Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre, and had the following useful feedback.

A note from Tony Witts of Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre:

“I would strongly recommend using UK based apps since we have highly developed networks for sharing data that academic institutions don't have as data is often held closely for their own research and funding opportunities.”

Useful Links:

For the ‘Langdon Garden’ project on the iNaturalist website Blog comparing iNaturalist and iRecord click here.

Where To Send Your Wildlife Records? - James Common's site, click here.

App Reviews

iNaturalist

iNaturalist is an online social network of people sharing biodiversity information to help each other learn about nature.” Originally founded in the US, it is now a global non-profit, with localised partnerships – in the UK this includes the Biological Records Centre and the National Biodiversity Network Trust. This means that data generated in the app is fed into our local Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre. Tony Witt of KMBRC has confirmed that iNaturalist is one of three apps (along with iRecord and BTO Birdtrack) that have good data flows and solid verification and validation procedures that assure data users such as KMBRC of the quality of the data.

KLAW and Apps – By Amanda Brookman

I have to agree with James Common, I find iRecord very useful. When I first started attending various wildlife events there was a lot of encouragement for people to record what they saw and iRecord was always the platform recommended. The phone app is very handy for in the field records and the PC based version great for when you’re back at home and have records to submit after you’ve identified what you’ve seen. Its also great for checking your submitted records.

There are also certain groups which have templates for recording that capture info that iRecord doesn’t automatically, such as if you are moth trapping, you select that species list and you will be asked for the kind of trap you have used and enter your data as a list.

There is also specific iRecord app for butterflies, unsurprisingly called iRecord Butterflies, which you can also tweak to include day flying moths. This is a great resource because it includes an ID guide and can be used to record one off sightings or multiple species in a survey area.

There’s also iRecord Grasshoppers, another fabulous app which includes ID help including the sounds of grasshoppers/ crickets and allows you to record them and upload them with your submission to aid verification.

The Kent Moth Group are exceptionally speedy at verifying records and I have found that hoverfly, ladybird, dragonfly and shieldbug records are also usually verified quite quickly too.

Some groups I have found get better verification if submitted through a recognised scheme e.g. BeeWalks, UKBMS or the Garden Butterfly Survey. There is some frustration within the general public that some records don’t seem to get verified, but this doesn’t stop me submitting what I can, you never know when a record may be needed and if we don’t know about something we can’t protect it.

My experience of using iNaturalist – By Sally Edge

From a personal point of view, I have been using the iNaturalist app on my phone for some months and have found it to be very user friendly. I mostly use it to record species that I have been able to photograph (so mostly invertebrates, plants and fungi, rather than birds, mammals or amphibians). I can then view these records in various formats – grid, list, and map. I can also use the map to see other user’s records in my area. Identifications can be verified by other users, and can turn observations from ‘casual grade’ to ‘research grade’. Most of my observations have been verified as research grade. The casual grade ones have not been verified by other users yet, or my image isn’t good enough for a definite ID. You can also use the app as an identification tool (it will look at your image and make suggestions), but I tend to cross-reference with the iPhone ID tool and internet research before making my record. Records can also include sound recordings so could be used for bird song, for example. I have recently used the ‘Project’ function for my garden called ‘Langdon Garden’. This means that anything recorded in the garden, by any user, is listed under the Langdon project. I will encourage visitors to our events to use it, and it may be useful in future if we run BioBlitz type activities.

iNaturalist and KLAW

If other KLAW members created similar projects for their areas of land, we would be able to follow and discuss each other’s observations. Potentially, this could be a great way to build the KLAW community, share information about wildlife on our land, and find common interests/potential projects.

Merlin

Merlin is a bird ID app – described by its makers as ‘a birding coach for bird watchers of every level’. It is created by Cornell University in the United States, and draws on data fed into the recording app eBird, including photos, recordings, and data about when and where observations were made. This user-generated data enables the Merlin AI to identify a bird in real time, quickly and easily. When installing the app you can choose your country location ensuring that the correct data set for your region is installed. It is primarily an ‘identification app’, rather than a ‘recording app’ so not one for sharing bird sightings with UK-based recording centres.

My experience of using Merlin – By Sally Edge

I have found Merlin to be a very enjoyable and rewarding app to use. As a beginner birder it has been great fun being able to use the app to identify the birds singing around me in real time. The app will highlight the names as each bird sings, so if a bird is repeating a call, you have a chance to listen multiple times and begin to recognise the sound by yourself. My impression is that the majority of identifications are correct – only once or twice have I been aware of a mix up (e.g. between a moorhen and a coot). The app also identifies from photos – even blurry ones – with accuracy, and makes suggestions from a description if you don’t have a photo or sound. Highly recommended for both beginner and more experienced bird watchers.

eBird

ebird shares records with the Kent Ornithological Soc. but the licence prevents them from sharing the records further, this is an issue that the wider local records community has looked into but not come up with a solution.

The ‘What’s Flying Tonight?’

One member has found this to be a great way to identify moth species that might be visiting your garden. You enter your postcode and the app pulls data from local moth records, displaying nearby species.
ladybird 6

Bird Ringing


One area of research is the bird ringing at several KLAW Member sites. For example, a team of experts has been ringing birds for several years at Mystole Orchard, which is a BTO Constant Effort Site (CES). This study is monitoring how bird populations are changing by ringing at fixed intervals and at the same locations. The data collected from both Mystole and other sites is sent to the BTO. These ringing records cover a range of species, with the sex, age and weight of each bird ringed. The details of where birds were previously ringed are recorded if recaught.

Details of the training essential for safe bird ringing is available by clicking here to go to the BTO web site. This also provides guidance on ringing, the reasons for it and how to get involved.

There are several ringing trainers and groups in Kent, also two Bird Observatories, Sandwich Bay and Dungeness, where people can go to see ringing being done and perhaps to get involved and train if they wish. Always remember that whilst ringing birds is a privilege and very enjoyable, it is a licensed activity and requires quite a commitment to train.

ringed bird
bird being ringed
ringed jay
ringed robin

Moths and Moth Trapping: A Quick(ish) Guide


Rory Harding, Kent Wildlife Trust


For more information on KWT and moths click here.


comma moth

Comma Moth

Moths are a vital part of our ecosystem, here in the UK they perform pollinator services as important as that of bees. New research shows moths are more efficient pollinators than bees. Click here to find out more.

Moths are also a vital part of the food chain. At the larval stage they feed on a huge variety of plants, these caterpillars provide food for predatory insects and birds. Those surviving to pupate into moths, are again a vital source of food for bats and insectivorous birds.

They are also underestimated in their beauty, which comes both from their variety, fantastical names and for many, their incredible pattern and colour. Once the world of moths is discovered you won’t think about them the same way again!

Sycamore Moth Caterpillar

Sycamore Moth Caterpillar


Mothy facts

  • There are over 2,500 species of moth in the UK, compared to just 59 species of butterfly.
  • Moths have decreased by 28% since 1960’s, although this is more like 40% in Southern Britain.

What is the difference between a moth and a butterfly?

Moths generally hold their wings horizontally at rest compared to butterflies, (although there are exceptions to this). Moths tend to have feathery antennae compared to clubbed antennae of most butterflies, but again there are some exceptions. There are some day flying moths, but most tend to be nocturnal in habit. Moths and butterflies all belong to the group Lepidoptera. More information here.

Managing land for moths

Moths love a combination of safe places to shelter and a food nearby, so creating a moth- friendly garden or larger land holding, is all about planting or encouraging a mixture of caterpillar foodplants, nectar-rich plants and shrubs or trees.

In terms of shelter in a garden its recommended to delay cutting back old plants or grass in autumn, or leave some areaa uncut all winter and also leave some piles of fallen leaves as shelter. For larger land areas managed for nature, leave some areas of long grass all winter (cutting in spring) even if you mow most of your meadow areas in autumn. Diversity of sward height and diversity of grass species are both key. Different grass species are really popular food plants for a mixture of moth larva.

No matter the size of your garden or land, reducing or stopping use of pesticides and herbicides is important, as these can harm moths, caterpillars and the plants on which they feed.

6 spot burnet

Six Spot Burnet

Lighting

Nocturnal insects, including many moths navigate in part by natural light sources, such as the moon. They can become disorientated by artificial light, wasting energy, increasing the risk of predation and reducing their efficiency as nocturnal pollinators. The type (wavelength) of light seems to affect species differently. For instance, LEDs seem to attract more moths and flies, but fewer beetles, than sodium lamps. LEDs with cool white light (blue end of the spectrum) attract more insects than warm white LEDS. As a general rule insects are more sensitive or attracted to short-wavelength (UV, blue and green) than long-wavelength (orange, red and infra-red) light.

Lighting can impact many species, not just moths

  • The breeding success of glow worms is adversely affected by artificial lighting
  • Bats show disrupted feeding patterns in lit areas
  • Robins extend their activity period in artificial light, singing in the middle of the night, which impacts their energy use can make them more prone to cold and disease
  • Moths and nocturnal-flying migrating birds can be disorientated by light sources and urban areas

Moth Trapping

Mothing, as it’s fondly known in the business, is a non-harmful method of catching moths alive, in order to identify and record the number and species. Moths will come towards light, and non-lethal moth traps are designed to draw them in, where they become disorientated, and settle. This is normally on egg boxes, overnight, so that they are ready to be identified and counted in the morning.

Precisely because you are luring a moth away from it’s important role of flying around to pollinate and mate, it’s important not to trap too frequently, once a month being a useful standard. This allows the building of a picture of what is there across the year and then for comparison of year to year.

Choosing a warm night, with little moonlight is preferable and choosing a location without other competing sources of light is also better. Moth trapping when there is a clear sky and full moon will often yield fewer moths coming to the trap.

To maximise the benefit of trapping, records should be submitted to iRecord or direct to Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre, so the data can be available for other ecologists and future ecologists to review and used to analyse distribution patterns and population changes over time.

Expert moth-ers will often stay with the trap into the evening, butterfly net in hand, to collect moths as they approach the trap (as not all will end up inside). These can then be identified on the spot, although the majority will be left to discover in the trap in the morning.

When starting out, it’s easier to begin with macro (larger) moths, and move to micro moths once you are more confident in your identification skills.

More on trapping: The NHBS Guide to Moth Trapping.



Poplar and Elephant Hawkmoth

Two Poplar Hawkmoths and an Elephant Hawkmoth


Large Yellow Underwing

Large Yellow Underwing


Moth Trapping

Moth Trapping at Langdon Court 2024


ID Books: Sources of Useful Information for Identification


Examples of Larval Foodplants


  • Foxgloves are food plants for several moths, including the lesser yellow underwing (Noctua comes), angle shades moth (Phlogophora meticulosa) and setaceous Hebrew character (Xestia c-nigrum), and great for bumblebees.
  • Lady’s bedstraw (Galium verum​) a native perennial wildflower which produces frothy heads of tiny yellow flowers, making a colourful addition to areas of long grass in summer, while providing food for the hummingbird hawk-moth (Macroglossum stellatarum), elephant hawk- moth (Deilephila elpenor) and bedstraw hawk-moth (Hyles gallii).
  • Mullein, irresistible to the brightly striped caterpillars of the mullein moth (Cucullia verbasci). Drought-resistant, statuesque biennials producing tall spires of yellow flowers that are perfect for punctuating prairie planting or a dry garden, as well as adding colour to wildlife areas.
  • Mint, a great all-rounder, caters for caterpillars of the mint moth and beautiful plume moth, as well as producing flowers that are loved by bees
  • Hedges, a mixed native hedge, provides for a huge range of insects, mammals and birds. Include species such as hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), hazel (Coryllus avellana) and dog rose (Rosa canina), each of which are food plants for several different moth caterpillars. Where there is enough space, larger native trees such as oak, birch and willow all provide for several moth species.

Unknown Caterpillar


Unknown Caterpillar


Day-flying Moth Favourites



Nocmig

One area of research is tracking bird migration by recording bird song. ‘Nocmig’ (or Night Flight Call / NFC recording as it’s known in North America) is the nocturnal equivalent of visible migration watching, and typically employs sound recording equipment to capture the flight calls of migrating birds. Many of the bird songs on this site are from nocmig studies by Martin Sutherland, such as the 10 minutes of a nightingale's song, recorded at 3am. They can be heard by clicking here.

This technique it is described on a website, with details of other resources for learning about nocmig. Please click here to find out more.


Reptile Monitoring


An area of research is the tracking of reptiles, guided by the Kent Reptile And Amphibian Group. This has involved the placement of "refugia". These are standard sized rectangles of corrugated iron and roofing felt, placed in grassy areas. The position of each pair numbered refugia is recorded using GPS.

On hot days in particular wildlife such as lizards, slowworms and grass snakes are found basking under the refugia, enjoying the high temperatures. The refugia are also favoured by voles, who are regularly seen scuttling to the nearest undergrowth when the refugia are lifted. Most refugia are seen to have open roofed tunnels created by voles. Ants are also present in their many hundreds of thousands, their presence apparently not worrying the reptiles at all.

The results of inspections are reported to KRAG. Photos of the creatures found under the refugia are included in the Media section.

We have noticed that 'looking under the refugia' is hugely popular with both adults and children, many of whom have not previously seen a slowworm, grass snake or vole.

Details of the work of KRAG is available by clicking here to go to their web site.

An example of refugia

Examples Of Refugia


Test Project for Biochar Production

Background - Why Biochar?

The production of biochar is millennia old, although common use of the term "biochar" is little more than a decade old. One area of KLAW members' research, is an investigation of small-scale methods of producing charcoal and how to then cost-effectively activate the charcoal to make biochar for use in improving soil and plant growth and to quantify the benefits in doing so. After the best production method has been identified biochar will be produced for testing of the benefits to plant growth and will it be available on a "its free, but please bring your own bags" basis. The equipment required for the project was funded by a grant from Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

This project was triggered by a conversation between Ed Kyrke-Smith of The Willows and Jenny and Keith Dugmore of Mystole Orchard. Ed has a strong interest in improving soil quality using ecologically sound methods. Jenny and Keith have an interest in methods of efficiently and effectively disposing of timber and brash from clearance of old trees when improving the habitat for birds such as nightingales and turtle doves. Jenny and Keith want to avoid production of wood ash on an open bonfire or leaving all the wood to rot, which would change the nature of the soil. Even just capturing carbon that will remain stable in the soil or millennia was thought to be worth pursuing, with improved soil quality a major bonus.

The major benefit for Mystole Orchard will be that timber cut down as part of scrub formation can be used in an environmentally beneficial way, and excess timber will no longer need to be burned on open bonfires.

Charcoal is mainly amorphous graphite (density ~2.27 g /cm3), but because charcoal is sponge-like it appears a lot less dense and will generally float. Fine grains of charcoal are activated to produce biochar. Activation is by impregnating with plant food and / or microbes. The high surface area provides high levels of absorption of the activant. This is believed support slow release of activators, so it is not all washed away with the first high rain fall. This is also believed to helps water retention and the slow release of nutrients and to provide a substrate for microbes that improve soil health.

The project is based on the stages shown in Figure 1, below.

fig 001 biochar project stages

Fig.1 Stages of production & testing


The Early Steps

The images below show some of the initial work:

Figure 2. is wood used to produce the biochar, cut into logs, then cut along the grain into triangular or rectangular sections. The timber had been seasoned for at least one year, under a water-proof cover. In this example the wood was set alight at the top of the drum, to test the difference to wood being set alight at the bottom of the drum.

Figure 3. shows an early burn trial, set alight at the bottom of the drum, initially with plenty of air, as can be seen by the visible flames, subsequently air was prevented from entering. The air reduction done was to reduce fine wood ash production and increase charcoal production.

Figure 4. is an example of the charcoal product, showing how brittle the charcoal is, with cracks both across and along the wood grain. Some of the tests carried out are to identify how to produce small particles of charcoal or how to transform chunks of charcoal into fine particles.

Figure 5. shows the charcoal being sieved - large pieces are either crushed and re-sieved or set aside to be added to a later burn. Tests to date have include checks on the difference in effectiveness of coarse vs fine particles of biochar. Sieve sizes start at 25 mm mesh, stepping down to 6mm. Typically 10% of the fine biochar passes through the finest sieve, mainly as charcoal dust.


fig 002 wood stock sample top burn

Fig.2 Timber samples, fired from the top


fig 003 pilot burn set up

Fig.3 Pilot set up


fig 004 sample of biochar

Fig.4 Charcoal product


fig 005 nettle soup bubbling

Fig.5 Charcoal being sieved



Up to June 2022 activation of the charcoal to produce biochar had to be limited to a concentrated solution of urea because of the limited time between the grant starting and the production of materials required to activate the charcoal. Urea was used because urea crystals were readily available to make a concentrated solution. The urea was left over from when the land was a commercial orchard. Subsequently, other materials were available, including soups made of comfrey, manure, compost and wood vinegar, either as supplies of plant nutrients or of microbes suitable for encouraging plant growth. The example shown in Figure 6 is 20kg of nettles immersed in water (from a bore hole), with air bubbled through the mixture. This was also compared to the same mix of nettles and borehole water, stored in an air tight drum.

Figure 7. shows an example of coarse biochar being tested by Ed Kyrke-Smith at The Willows, on clay soil.

Figure 8. shows a bed of beetroot treated with biochar of different types: fine vs coarse, wet vs activation with concentrated urea solution, different types of wood etc. The project timing meant the biochar had to be added after the young plants had sprouted. Other tests include biochar mixed in with the top layer of clay soil, before seeds are sown.

Figure 9. shows 55 litres of fine-grained charcoal, not yet activated, being added to compost, in order to produce compost activated biochar. This was said to have increased the speed at which old plant material is converted to compost. This is reported to be by increasing the temperature. It has not yet been possible to compare two bins of compost, one with added charcoal and one without, to quantify the difference that charcoal might be making. Tests continue, including otherwise identical piles of compost, one treated with fine grained charcoal, one without, plus another two compost heaps, but this time one with activated charcoal and one without. We hope quantified results will available by the summer of 2024.


fig 006 nettle soup bubbling

Fig.6 Bubbling nettle soup


fig 007 wood stock sample top burn

Fig.7 Coarse biochar under test


fig 008 pilot burn set up

Fig.8 Biochar under test for young plants


fig 009 55 litres of biochar being added to compost

Fig.9 Plain charcoal added to compost




Producing fine-grained charcoal

Early tests sought the best way of producing fine-grained charcoal using easily obtained (and cheap) 210 litre oil drums, used by many others to produce charcoal and biochar. Initial tests established wet wood can be used (but produce excessive pollution), that hardwood takes longer to convert to charcoal than softwood, so a mixed load of different wood types is to be avoided. Initial tests also established that it was necessary to be able to control the air entering the drum to avoid producing wood ash instead of the desired charcoal. To do this the dry wood has to be heated with a minimum of air /oxygen in a process known as pyrolysis.

Dry wood, consistent types of wood and limiting the air entering the oil drum still did not always produce the desired fine grained charcoal aimed for. Large lumps of "charcoal" were found to be an outer layer of the desired brittle charcoal covering singed wood. As one of the aims of the project was to produce charcoal that will trap carbon as stable amorphous graphite in the soil, singed wood that will rot down and release carbon into the atmosphere has to be avoided, so ways of minimising singed wood were tested.

The most effective way of minimising singed wood (or at the other extreme, wood ash) and maximising charcoal production was to start with wood split as shown in Figures 10-12.


fig small log cutting dimensions 010

Fig.10 Cross-section cuts of small diameter logs


fig large log cutting dimensions 011

Fig.11 Cross-section cuts for large diameter logs


fig plank cutting dimensions 012

Fig.12 Plank-like cutting for large diameter logs


Part of the restrictions on wood size were also due to the benefit of being able to pack the wood into tightly in the drum, of the dimensions shown in Figure 13, packed as shown in Figure 14. As a rule of thumb maximum dimensions can be considered to be less than half the diameter of the 210 litre drum and to allow two layers of tightly packed wood in each drum. With much larger drums there will be less of a restriction on the maximum length of the wood as packing will be easier.


Maximising charcoal production: design of the oil drum burner

Figure 13 shows the dimensions of the oil drum, the chimney, cowl and venting holes (with ceramic bungs). When a fire is first lit wood is locally heated by the match acting on the kindling. Hydrocarbon gases such as methane are driven out of the wood and burn. Burning gases in turn heat the wood so the rate of gas being driven out increases and more gases burn. Water is also driven out at the same time as gases such as carbon dioxide / monoxide or complex carbon containing molecules are driven out. When the most volatile gases have been driven out the wood is hot enough to start degrading. The residual material is gradually converted. Without (much) air/oxygen graphite is produced by pyrolysis (the thermal decomposition of the wood), if the temperature is close to or about 280C.

fig 013

Fig.13 Oil drum and chimney dimensions


fig 013

Fig.14 Packing of the Oil drum


In contrast, if there is an ample supply of air/oxygen, such as an open fire or if there is a flow of air / oxygen through the oil drum, the wood burns ultimately producing wood ash, atmospheric pollution from a large volumes of gasses such as carbon dioxide but very little charcoal. Converting wood to charcoal with the minimum of air increases the volume of charcoal that can then be stored in soil and reduces the pollution produced. However, if the air / oxygen is too restricted, the fire goes out. In practice, after the wood has burned for 3-6 hours the chimney is removed, the collar blocked off and the bungs put in the vents, as also shown in Figure 13. Blocking off the air / oxygen avoids any charcoal burning. The length of time required before the chimney is blocked is dictated by the level moisture in the wood, the type of wood, how tightly the wood is packed in the oil drum, the size of the vents and how windy it it, particularly 1-2 metres above the base of the oil drum, at the top of the chimney.


Maximising charcoal production: temperature gradients


The other factor is the difference in temperature across and down the drum. A temperature gradient means wood in one part of the drum has wood that has started to pyrolise, whilst another part is much cooler and not burning. Figure 15 shows the early state of a typical burn early, when most of the wood is still cool. The temperature is also cooler next to the wall of the drum. When a typical burn has reached to the stage shown in Figure 16 the bulk of the wood has been converted to charcoal, with little wood ash. If a burn is left for an unusually long time (for example overnight) the bulk has been converted to wood ash.

fig 015

Fig.15 Initial stage of burning


fig 016

Fig.16 Typical full burn


fig 017

Fig.17 Excess burning time



Willow Bird Hides


Several years ago we saw several huts made from osier willows in the garden of what had been Anne Hathaway's home near Stratford Upon Avon. This intrigued us but the idea settled into the back of our minds. It was only when we decided a bird hide overlooking the largest of the Mystole Orchard wildlife ponds would be useful for research that we remembered. The location is shown by the dotted lines in the photo.

We had concluded a conventional wooden bird hide, as seen in places such as the RSPB and Woodland Trust sites was not in our budget. Instead making (or should that be building or weaving?) a hide made from willows seemed to be a good idea.

The willow bird hide has become a research project in itself as we wait for the willows to grow until we have a full sized hide. We don't yet know if this will work, not the least because it is located in a far from an ideal position. As the photo shows the hide is at the top of a bund created when the largest wildlife pond was excavated, which must be draining better than surrounding land. But so far - so good. Each step so far is shown below.


Original Site.jpg

Original Site


Planting Plan

Planting Plan



Once the willows had rooted and grown to about 1.8 metres tall we selected those willows growing where the windows will be. These willows were bent 90 degrees and woven through the adjacent willows, to provide a gap for the windows.

At the same time we strengthened the whole hide by weaving extra, unrooted, long willows through the rooted willows.

Finally we wove the new branches of the rooted willows through adjacent willows. The branches were typically 50 cm long and help to give density to the hide structure.

Our thanks go to Steffan Walton of Sandwich Bird Observataory, Mary Butcher, willow weaving expert, and Paul Roberts of Hambrook Marshes, for their help and advice in getting this experiment going.

Jenny and Keith Dugmore

moving hedgehog

Back to Top

Follow KLAW 
Follow KLAW 
© KLAW 2021