Bonus read, just because I found it interesting

[SteamyTea]

Why we can't afford to ignore the world's smallest freshwater bodies

Ponds have long been neglected by science, but we can't overlook these diverse and important nature hotspots any more, say Jeremy Biggs and Penny Williams

By Jeremy Biggs and Penny Williams

29 May 2024

 

 

Elaine Knox

Considering they are the world’s most numerous patches of water, it is surprising that ponds are poorly understood. There are millions – possibly billions – of them. Yet for a century or so, scientists have paid them very little attention.

This neglect might not have mattered were it not for increasing evidence that ponds are extremely important habitats for wildlife. Across many landscapes, they are being shown to support more freshwater plant and animal species than rivers or lakes. From microscopic algae to water beetles, aquatic plants, amphibians and water birds, ponds have rich, diverse and distinctive communities with a disproportionate number of rare and endangered species.

Intriguingly, this biodiversity seems to be partly due to the small size of ponds, which allows them to have a wide range of conditions. The community in a shaded pond with clear, tannin-rich water will be very different to that in a nearby seasonal pond made cloudy by grazing animals. Ponds show far greater variation than rivers and streams, as flowing water tends to homogenise water chemistry.

So why have we overlooked such a vital part of the natural world? A key reason appears to be what freshwater scientist John Downing has called “a saliency error”: the cognitive bias we humans have where we tacitly assume that if something is small, it can’t be all that important. Rather than study ponds, biologists in the past typically headed for the largest lake or river they could find.

Most of us also devalue ponds because we assume they are artificial habitats: we look at the human-made examples around us and don’t realise that these waters have a deeply ancient origin. In our new book Ponds, Pools and Puddles, we debunk this idea. Ponds have clearly existed on Earth as long as there has been land and water and the geological record shows they have been a constant presence. The best-preserved evidence of pond-like freshwater communities anywhere in the world is in the Rhynie chert rocks in Scotland, which has traces of Devonian fairy shrimps swimming among stonewort plants 400 million years ago, just as they do today.

The neglect of ponds within freshwater science has had a big impact on our ability to protect their wildlife. It has created a world view in which policy-makers can simply ignore the vast networks of ponds that make up so much of the global water environment. In Europe, for example, the Water Framework Directive – the main legislation to protect freshwater features – mostly excludes any bodies of water smaller than 50 hectares (about 120 acres).

Fortunately, perceptions are changing. Last year, the Ramsar Convention xiv.15_small_wetlands_e.pdf, an international treaty, introduced a resolution on small wetlands, including ponds, giving crucial recognition to them. And the European Union-funded PONDERFUL project is gathering data on Europe’s ponds.

There remains much to do, however, particularly if we want to harness the biodiversity power that such environments offer. As the effects of climate change deepen, plants and animals will increasingly need to move across the landscape to survive. Our work at Freshwater Habitats Trust in the UK has added to growing evidence of the importance of ponds for biodiversity. They are one of the few habitats that we can create in considerable numbers to help freshwater species adapt over short timescales. They are easy to make and they colonise rapidly.

In a world where fresh water faces big challenges, creating and protecting ponds provides a ray of hope: a piece of natural ecological engineering we can easily achieve to help support one of the most threatened bits of the biosphere.

Jeremy Biggs and Penny Williams are at Freshwater Habitats Trust, a UK conservation charity

[joe90]

Right (devils advocate hat on) why do we need scientists to explore ponds? We know they are good fir the planet, diversity and nature so as long as we protect them, don’t pollute them and let them get on with what they do why interfere? (I have a pond in my garden with newts, frogs and all sorts.)

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

why do we need scientists to explore ponds

Because we measure and systematically log data.

It is one thing that most scientists (real) understand.

The alternative is making assumptions based on nothing more than limited observation and bias.

[joe90]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Because we measure and systematically log data.

It is one thing that most scientists (real) understand.

The alternative is making assumptions based on nothing more than limited observation and bias.

Why, if it’s working (which they mostly are unless man is interfering). They managed long before scientists came along. Perhaps they are looking for problems that do not exist 🤷‍♂️

Edited June 1 by joe90

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

They managed long before scientists came along. 

And they manage until developers come along and argue that small ponds are unimportant and can be destroyed and not replaced.

On Gardeners' World this week, a guy is sinking any handleless mugs into his garden as micro ponds: I've no idea how helpful that is, but he said they are soon  occupied

 

[Mattg4321]

What about making assumptions based upon computer models/political pressure/availability of funding