The Validity of the "Understanding Predation" Project

This is a post by Patrick Stirling-Aird, the Secretary of the Scottish Raptor Study Groups, who is a founder member of the Moorland Forum.

Following the Edinburgh seminar on 12th November (a useful event in itself) I have been thinking about the rationale and indeed as a consequence the validity of the "Understanding Predation" project. My feeling is that there is a need to go back to basics, as they say, and to look at the whole question of predation afresh rather than through the medium of this project, which concentrates on the issue through too narrow a prism.

Patrick Stirling-Aird

What I mean is this: collectively we should recognise that we live with, and have thus become used to, habitats that in many cases have been degraded well below their potential; we should set about restoring that potential, to better mesh in improved habitats with current land uses, which in themselves need modification; and once that goal has been achieved, at least to a significant extent, if felt necessary we can come back to considerations of predator/prey interactions in a more satisfactory, in reality a more healthy, environment than the one in which we find ourselves at present. In a sense, I am not putting forward a totally new approach, since on 12th November the theme, "what sort of countryside do we want?" was raised although, unsurprisingly perhaps, no clear answers emerged.

In practical terms but taking only a broad-brush view at this juncture as detailed prescriptions can come later, we need to rein back on the more intensive, extractive forms of land use that prevail here and now. Biodiversity on lowland farmland is in many places a meagre shadow of what it was formerly. A large extent of the uplands has been plagued by over-grazing and probably excessive burning too, with the various problems caused by intensive and semi-intensive red grouse management becoming ever more apparent. Forestry has been going in a better direction (the supertanker having been turned around, as it has been put) but no doubt there is room for some further improvement here, for example through an additional expansion of native woodland.

There are vested interests which will probably oppose such moves, with the call going up "jobs will be lost." That need not necessarily be so but the jobs themselves, some of them anyway, are likely to be different. Scotland (and the remainder of the United Kingdom) is a very rich country by comparison with most of the rest of the world so is well able to pay for a large-scale move towards a more benign (one might say nature-friendly) environment, if the will is there. I cannot envisage widespread public opposition to such a move if it is explained adequately. Instead, there might be a lot of enthusiasm for it.

It is in these contexts that I feel that "Understanding Predation" is misplaced and premature. This project's present approach puts the cart before the horse. On any long-term view it does not make sense, ecologically or even socially, to draw conclusions about predation in the context of land uses which we know are distinctly sub-optimal but which can and should go in a better direction. Instead we should go back to the drawing board, improve habitats first which will mean ameliorating certain land uses and only thereafter have a fresh look at predation if there is then an apparent need so to do. As part of this approach, we should be contemplating at that stage predation in the light of a healthier wildlife community incorporating top predators, both avian and mammalian, with a predator/prey balance (a genuine one, not the contrived "balance" that is constantly being advocated by some) that will flow from this.

Content of the Understanding Predation review and the use of Scientific and Local Knowledge

The scientific reviewing for the project is now in full swing so we want to show everyone the draft structure for the review, and explain the review methods. We know that people have strong and very different views about predation, so we want to be sure there are no misunderstandings about what the project hopes to deliver.

The review will bring together natural science and local knowledge of recent wild bird population changes and their drivers in Scotland. It will focus on the relative role of avian and mammalian predation, within the wider range of population drivers, on ground-nesting waders and gamebirds in upland and lowland systems, and the evidence for effectiveness of possible management measures to maintain healthy populations of both predators and wild bird prey. It will also summarise wider information on recent population changes of Scottish wild bird and predator populations, and drivers of those population changes, in an accessible form.

All evidence considered by the project will be objectively and critically reviewed to a high standard, using systematic and transparent collation and reviewing approaches. The criteria used to filter evidence for inclusion will be explained clearly and a comprehensive annotated bibliography will accompany the review.

• Our core aim is to explore the scientific literature together with people's understanding of these issues, to identify and explore similarities and differences in understanding between groups of stakeholders, as well as between stakeholders and the conclusions from scientific reviewing. 
• We will scrutinize carefully the factual evidence, both in the scientific literature and the local knowledge provided by stakeholders, and we will not take any statement as fact that is not supported by adequate evidence. This will allow us to distinguish carefully between fact-based and value-based knowledge.
• We will scrutinise the degree to which different stakeholders engage with science, their attitudes towards science, how they decide whether or not to prioritise science over local knowledge, and the reasons for their differing levels of engagement with scientific findings.
• Ultimately, we need local knowledge to help guide future research because we need peer- reviewed future research that asks the right questions at the right scale and is co-produced with stakeholders. This research is ultimately what will guide future policy. 
• We are not seeking to use local knowledge to inform policy itself.

The conclusions drawn with regard to existing knowledge of population change, drivers of change, and effectiveness of potential management options will be based on critical appraisal of the detailed evidence provided. Where stakeholders submitting local knowledge are able to point us to evidence for any statements (not necessarily published, but able to be demonstrated to all readers of the report), this will be appraised fully for the review.

Please have a look at the draft report structure to see how local knowledge will inform each part of the work and please post us questions if you would like any further clarification.

The Understanding Predation Research Group

The Joy of Science

This post has been provided by Professor Steve Redpath from the University of Aberdeen. He argues the case for the scientific approach and this is a development of the presentation he gave to the Project's Steering Group on 27th February.

Science is a wonderful thing that helps us understand how the world works. A scientific approach means investigating the effects of predation with no pre-conceptions, but openly considering alternative ideas, carefully collecting and analysing the data and testing to see which idea is best supported by the evidence. When done well, the value of such an approach lies in its ability to cut through beliefs and adversarial positions to illuminate what is actually going on.

Often, however, science is criticised for restating the bleeding obvious, when all we need is some good common sense and to trust our instincts. Yet, there are very good reasons why that criticism is unfounded. In his excellent book on science and medicine, Ben Goldacre (Bad Science 2008, Fourth Estate), highlights why we should be careful when relying on our instincts. For one thing, we naturally see patterns where none exist, and erroneously assign causality to those patterns. Humans are thoroughly social creatures, and the way we view the world is coloured not only by our underlying beliefs but by those of the people around us. Lastly, non-scientific investigations are typically biased towards evidence that backs up our ideas, rather than taking the more powerful approach of finding ways to test whether the existing ideas are wrong. So, the danger in just relying on common sense is that it can lead us to the wrong conclusions.

Instead, we should rejoice in clear, objectively collected, robust data that allows us to move towards the right conclusions, rather than fumble around in the darkness. Of course, scientists have a responsibility to be transparent and open about their work, to be clear about their hypotheses, their assumptions and their predictions, and to minimise the risks of these biases creeping into their work. But, when it is done well, science can joyfully guide us towards the right management decisions and, ultimately, force us to reconsider our view of the world.

Steve Redpath

University of Aberdeen

The strength of combining different knowledge sources

This post has been provided by Dr Chris Wernham from BTO and members of the Project's Research Group to promote an understanding about how the different sources of knowledge will be combined in the project.  Please let me know what you think about the project's methods and the pros and cons of collecting and comparing the different information sources.

The Understanding Predation project is responding to common concerns shared by a wide range of organisations in Scotland about broad-scale declines in a number of wild bird species, and in particular a suite of ground-nesting birds (including breeding waders and wild gamebirds). 

There is widespread interest in understanding the geographical patterns of change, and the impact of predator-prey interactions on these declining species, alongside, and in combination with, other factors that may influence the observed population changes. 

The project also aims to review a range of management options that could assist in mitigating these declines, to ensure that healthy populations of both prey and predators can be sustained. It will consider existing evidence for the success or otherwise of a range of suggested management options.

Relevant knowledge of all of these topics is held not just within published scientific research but also within the community of stakeholders that spend time in our countryside and have experience of managing land across Scotland (termed ‘local ecological knowledge’). The Project will use systematic and critical methods to collect and review both traditional scientific evidence and local ecological knowledge in consistent and comparable ways. The methods that we will use to do the work will ensure that:

• the different types of knowledge are treated equitably;
• the evidence behind any conclusions reached is robust and clearly explained; and
• the different types of knowledge can be integrated to provide an evidence base and shared understanding of the commonalities, differences and reasons for any differences in conclusions.

You can find further information on how the project will do this, and the topics that will be covered, in the presentation that the BTO has prepared to provide an introduction to the Project.