In the 33 years since joining the Trust in 1989, Andrew Hoodless has worked on key GWCT research projects which have gone on to influence policy and best practice. The Upland Predation Experiment in Northumberland, work to quantify the effects of gamebird releasing on woodland wildlife and studies on breeding waders have all had a lasting impact. At the same time, he has become recognised as a world authority on woodcock.
What impact did these studies have?
After joining as a new graduate and completing my PhD on woodcock breeding and wintering ecology – the start of my lifelong interest in the species – I went to Otterburn to set up the Upland Predation Experiment with Dave Baines, our director of upland research. This long-term research came to be regarded as a landmark study, showing clear benefits of predation control as practised by moorland gamekeepers, for species other than grouse. Breeding success of lapwing, golden plover and curlew increased three-fold and, importantly, this translated into increasing numbers. The Upland Predation Experiment has influenced thinking on approaches to wader conservation and highlighted the role of grouse moors as breeding wader strongholds.
The work on the effects of pheasant releasing, with Roger Draycott and Rufus Sage, was spread across 160 lowland sites. With this study we showed that some typical shoot management practices, such as ride creation and sky-lighting within woodland, were generally beneficial for songbirds and butterflies. But there were some detrimental effects, especially within release pens, on vegetation and some invertebrates. This study resulted in improved guidance for shoots, such as threshold figures for pheasant releasing densities, which are now recognised as best practice.
These studies demonstrate one of the GWCT’s great strengths – our research doesn’t just identify problems, it develops solutions and suggests changes to management practices, many of which go on to form future policy.
Did you maintain your interest in waders and woodcock during this period?
I carried on some wader monitoring in the Avon Valley and in 2010 I became head of the new Wetlands research team. With funding from Natural England, we began more intensive wader monitoring, which showed rapid population declines in the valley. Once we understood the key issues, we set up the LIFE Waders for Real project with EU funding in 2015. Working with the farmers and gamekeepers, we established management practices to ensure that populations would be sustainable into the future and, I am happy to say, we succeeded in reversing wader declines.
Concurrently, my work with woodcock was showing up national declines and the need to better understand both resident and migrant birds. From 2010 we began tracking woodcock, first with geolocators then with satellite tags.
You are recognised as a world authority on woodcock. What has that work achieved?
Woodcock research is a very small world, but our results have changed the understanding of woodcock migration. The assumption, based on ringing, had been that most birds arriving to winter in the UK came from Scandinavia. However, our tracking showed that around 60% came from Russia, with some migrating more than 6,000 kilometres from Siberia.
Your long career with the GWCT makes you eminently well-suited to your new role. Do you believe such longevity would have been possible elsewhere?
What sets the GWCT apart is the breadth of research expertise, and not just in birds – we have mammal and farmland ecologists, entomologists, fisheries scientists and predation experts – and that gives us a range of research opportunities and a broader outlook. The interaction between teams is something I’m looking to foster in my role.
Has our departure from the EU had consequences for GWCT research?
The loss of EU funding presents the GWCT with a real challenge. Having delivered several successful EU-funded projects, including MorFISH, QuESSA, LIFE Waders for Real, BEESPOKE, PARTRIDGE and SAMARCH, it is frustrating not only to lose that source of funding but also the opportunity to continue successful relationships with partner organisations in Europe. There is still uncertainty around what will replace EU funding.
What is the solution as you see it?
I have concerns about how secure we will be if we rely mainly on income from estates for gamebird projects. With the prospect of further restrictions on game management, it is essential that we ensure the shooting community understands and continues to support our work, but I see potential for further broadening our remit in areas such as delivery of ecosystem services on farmland, catchment scale fisheries management and wildlife management. Continued collaboration with other organisations is likely to be key to accessing new sources of funding.
Where next for GWCT research?
There is work to be done on understanding what is driving populations of common predators – the issue is much broader than the UK and gamebird releasing. There is more for us to do on farmland – we need to devise effective measures for delivering wildlife across the landscape and explore further the relative merits of options to work alongside more intensive crop management for higher yields driven by concerns over food security, versus lower input and regenerative farming systems. Technological advances, such as GPS tags, drones, DNA metabarcoding and apps, have opened new possibilities for answering research questions in recent years and further developments are inevitable. We must maintain collaborations ensuring access to the latest techniques and invest in expertise for processing and analysing the large datasets we produce. It’s these valuable datasets that help inform future management decisions.
To what extent have we found common ground with other conservation organisations on predation control and gamebird releasing?
We have a good understanding of the impact of predation on gamebirds and some species of conservation concern – it has taken a long time to convince others. But we are making headway. In the 2000s few wader conservationists recognised predation as an issue, but recently it has been more generally accepted, if there is not yet an agreement on the level of intervention required.
The current scale of gamebird releasing is causing conservationists real concern. Although some of the arguments against releasing are misinformed or too simplistic, we think some of the concerns are justified.
The GWCT won’t shy away from highlighting the negatives of gamebird releasing, but always with a view to suggesting improvements to practices. We have met little resistance from shoots to our advice to delay shooting woodcock until 1 December. Many people understand the need to change their practices to help conserve our resident birds and ensure the future sustainability of woodcock shooting. We need to reach the same place with released pheasants and partridges if shoots are to ensure their sport is sustainable.
Clearly you see GWCT research as having a role in changing behaviour?
Yes, and a key part of that is communicating our findings to the widest possible audience. When I started my career, it was all about publishing in high impact journals. That is still important in maintaining our reputation with other NGOs, universities and policymakers. But in today’s social media world it is also vital that our researchers make their work accessible to the wider public, building support and profile for the GWCT.