1. Field Identification Skills Certificates (FISCs) – ten years of data, and a review Sarah Whild

2. How do we currently assess new recorders?
Look them up in the year book?
Check their species lists for discrepancies
Ask for voucher specimens
Ask recording colleagues
…but there is an increasing requirement for a more empirical approach, especially from employers.

3. How good is he?
Or he?
Or she?

4. FISCs? Field Identification Skills Certificates administered by BSBI
Two lab tests and a field test
Field test of two parts – candidates are taken to a botanically rich site and asked to record as many species as possible, against a ‘gold standard’ surveyor, recording at the same time
A list where ‘reasonable’ species receive a mark each
All ‘unreasonable, or false positive’ species recorded, receive a mark against

5. How to assess using an empirical approach - the Skills Pyramid
Developed by Sarah Whild and Sue Townsend in 2003 as a set of descriptors for general field skills, presented to the BES.
Revised into a botanical pyramid.
Seven levels, starting at level 1 and progressing upwards

6. Know Your Plants Published in 2010 Details of the skills pyramid
How to progress from level to level

7. Whether we like it or not, as recorders, we make judgements about other people’s botanical skills
This may not always be a comfortable process…
So how can we make it easier?

8. How do FISCs work?
A lab test of 10 specimens without using any books or other ID guides
A lab test of 20 specimens with books and ID guides
A site survey (approx 1 ha) of fairly complex vegetation
The two field surveys are also carried out by a ‘gold standard’ level 5 surveyor at the same time

9. Ten years of FISCs… Ten years of FISC data!
2017 saw a ten year review of the FISC protocols, and these were updated
Quentin Groom and S Whild published a paper on some of the more interesting data (false positives/Type 1 errors)
Quentin did all of the clever stuff

10. Ten years of FISCs…
Reviewed the protocols (a set of instructions on how to run a FISC – everything from choosing species, health and safety, to marking procedures).
This ensures that wherever a FISC is run, there is consistency

11. Everything you need to know…
…about FISCs
In one publication
Should have been out earlier this year (sorry)
Information for participants on what to expect
Information on how to run and mark a FISC, so there is complete transparency about the process

12. Some figures on FISCs
Up to 2017, FISCs delivered by Kent Wildlife Trust, Manchester Met University, Leicester University, and Natural England (in different locations)

13. Kent
2014
2015
2016
Total 1 2 4 7 18 3 8 10 23 41 16 30 5 6 92

15. Leicester
Level
2014
2015
2016
Total 1 2 4 3 7 11 29 8 13 32 5 6 68

17. NE
Level
2015
2016
Total 1 2 3 13 15 4 5 18 23 6 43

19. Shrewsb’y
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total 1 5 7 2 3 4 8 6 9 56 10 14 16 19 25 32 33
171 13 11 15 18 20
137 26
402

21. S'bury NE
Leics
Kent
Total 1 7 2 56 3 18 84
171 15 29 41
256 4
137 23 32 30
222 5 26 31 6
402 43 68 92
605

23. Where do FISCs go next? Please run FISCs in Scotland!
Please run FISCs in Ireland – although the feeling is these would need to have a separate identity as Irish FISCs
Let’s get more FISC sponsorship – already a small amount from CIEEM, TEP, FSC, FRCP
And let people know this is a BSBI product

24. Let’s not reinvent the wheel…

25. Lessons from the data for training?
Teach CAUTION

26. Lessons from the whole FISC process?
It has started to get BSBI a profile in the consultancy sector
CIEEM are interested
It’s a great way of gaining new working partners
I wish I could figure out how to make money for BSBI out of it!

27. Acknowledgements Thanks to:
BSBI’s Science and Research Committee for funding digitization of five years’ of data.
To Quentin for utterly mystifying stats
To everyone who commented on the protocols, including CIEEM, FRCP consultancy, TEP, Kent Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Richard Gornall, and participants for their feedback

28. References
Groom, Q. and Whild, S.J Identification of type 1 errors in botanical recording. PeerJ.
Whild S.J., Townsend S. et al So You Want to Know Your Plants. Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland.

29. A few extra interesting bits

30. FISCs (Field Identification Skills Certificate)
Data from 199 participants was sorted into:
correct records (reasonables)
false positives (unreasonables)
tentative taxa (reasonables)
jabberwockies (highly unreasonable...)

31. Unreasonable species = Type 1 errors or False Positives
Type 1 errors – a false positive – recording something that isn’t there
Type 2 errors – a false negative, ie, missing something that is there.
Type 1 errors are considered far more ‘dangerous’ in experimental and scientific terms, than Type 2 errors

32. FISC field recorders also make odd errors... or Jabberwockies
Geranium palustre
Silene jacobaea
Plantago ovalifolium
Burweed

33. The most common species recorded as false +ves?
Agrostis stolonifera
Epilobium montanum
Holcus mollis
Polypodium vulgare
Bryonia dioica
Equisetum arvense
Hypericum tetrapterum
Potentilla erecta
Carex riparia
Euphrasia nemorosa
Juncus articulatus
Rumex conglomeratus
Conopodium majus
Glyceria fluitans
Lotus corniculatus
Scabiosa columbaria
Crepis vesicaria
Glyceria maxima
Persicaria maculosa
Sonchus oleraceus

34. The most common species recorded as false +ves?
… have no significant taxonomic clumping We have yet to analyse Type 2 errors or false negatives, but I’d hypothesise that there is some taxonomic clumping in Type 2 errors

35. 10 steps to reducing the number of false +ves?
Insist on a specimen
Training in identification
Training in navigation
Training in the consequences of misidentification
Rank observations by source & level of evidence
Observe in groups
Don’t celebrate a long list
Foster a supportive, open, non-judgmental culture
Use computer software
Touch every plant