Mowing cuts across the meadow's year, and with it the water, the sward and what can be seen from the edge all change. Two model drawings: the same patch before and after the cut.
Left frame · model schematicVI · JuneBefore mowing
Mowing
VI → VII · the cut from the model (July = an example, not a norm)
Right frame · model schematicVII · JulyFreshly mown
A model schematic, not a photograph and not a map. These are two separate drawings of the same conventional patch in a cross-section of the valley (river on the left, embankment on the right). They do not join into a single panorama and are not photographic evidence. The water and moisture levels have four conventional steps derived from qualitative descriptions, not from measurements.
Blue: water
Ochre: work (mowing)
Graphite: line of sight from the embankment. Solid: general survey window, dashed: start of the window, dotted: outside the window or pause
Green and brown: sward. The lilac ball and the pale flat umbel are two types of flower head, without identifying species
Which two months should be compared?
One-month transitions
Four records side by side
In the model 4 of the 4 tracks change: water, plants, work, survey. The interval includes the mowing from the model (July). Coincidence in time is a question to investigate, not an established cause.
Water what the river did
VI · June (left frame)
Water in the channel, stable ground. No overbank flooding on the patch, a stabilised groundwater level.
VII · July (right frame)
Summer low water. Usually a low river level and dry ground; in the example this makes the operation easier.
Change in the modelriver level lower, ground drier
Plants what shows in the sward
VI · June (left frame)
Shoots developed. Tall sward before mowing; shoots and flower heads visible.
VII · July (right frame)
Stubble. Mechanical cutting of the sward; above-ground shoots removed.
Change in the modelShoots developed → Stubble
Work what the farmer did
VI · June (left frame)
Before mowing. Tall sward; the mowing operation is only planned in the schematic.
VII · July (right frame)
Extensive mowing (example). July was taken as an illustration of the cut – it is not a calendar norm or a date for any plot.
Change in the modelmowing in the right frame
Survey what can be read from the edge
VI · June (left frame)
Start of the general window (end of VI). GIOŚ guidelines indicate surveys from the end of June, before haymaking.
VII · July (right frame)
Pause after mowing. Fresh stubble limits the legibility of features; the guidelines recommend surveys before mowing or after regrowth.
Change in the modelStart of the general window (end of VI) → Pause after mowing
Choosing the mowing does not switch off the water track: water is in the comparison whichever frames are chosen. The statement ‘changes’ refers to the model. It describes differences between two states and is not a detection of causes. The model counts a track as changed when: for water, there is a different step of river level or ground moisture; for plants, a different sward phase; for work, mowing in one frame but not in the other; for survey, a different window class (outside the window or pause, start of the window, within the window). The verbal descriptions may differ even when the step, phase or class does not change.
The whole season on one axis
The same content for all seven months. The selected frames are marked at the top of the column; the ochre line on the left of July is the mowing from the model. On a wide screen the seven columns stand in one row, on narrower ones they wrap into further rows, and on a phone the list stacks vertically, with no horizontal scrolling.
IV April
WaterSurface flooding
PlantsEarly shoots under water
WorkNo work
SurveyOutside the general window
V May
WaterFalling water, silty ground
PlantsVigorous sward growth
WorkSward growth without mowing
SurveyBefore the general window
VI June
WaterWater in the channel, stable ground
PlantsShoots developed
WorkBefore mowing
SurveyStart of the general window (end of VI)
VII July
WaterSummer low water
PlantsStubble
WorkExtensive mowing (example)
SurveyPause after mowing
VIII August
WaterStable summer level
PlantsRegrown aftermath
WorkRegrowth or grazing
SurveyAfter regrowth
IX September
WaterMists, rising moisture
PlantsSeed ripening
WorkEnd of work
SurveyEnd of the general window (to IX)
X October
WaterSeepage, high moisture
PlantsDried-out biomass
WorkNo work
SurveyOutside the general window
A record from the edge: what is still missing
Three fields compare the record with the general survey window (end of VI – IX, before mowing or after regrowth). An empty field means no information, not a value. The card saves nothing and assesses nothing.
No data
Nothing has been entered yet. An empty field is a lack of information, not a value.
Missing or limiting
Month: no entry. Without a date the record cannot be compared with the survey window (end of VI – IX).
Condition of the sward: no entry. Without the condition of the sward it is not known whether the plant features are legible at all.
Water: field empty. An empty field means no information – not a measurement, not ‘dry’ and not zero.
This comparison is not an assessment of habitat 6440 or permission to enter. Check access and the safety of the terrain separately. Observe from publicly accessible places, without trampling the sward or disturbing animals.
Limits of the model and changes relative to V2
What this model does not say
Calendar. The months IV–X are a conventional example (Model A), not an official norm and not a description of any plot. The July mowing is an illustration of the cut.
Water. The river and ground moisture levels in the drawings are conventional steps taken from qualitative descriptions. They are not a forecast or hydrological data.
Species. The two types of flower head refer to mouse garlic (Allium angulosum) and Cnidium dubium from the habitat description, but this is a schematic, not an identification key. The rule from V2: ‘one flower is not a diagnosis of a plant community’.
Terrain. The page does not identify habitat 6440 and gives neither permission to enter nor a safety assessment. Not spotting a species from the edge does not rule out a patch.
Coincidence. Things that change at the same time are a question for interpretation, not an indication of cause.
What was removed, replaced or kept
The cause detector (a split into ‘model assumption’, ‘field limitation’ and ‘recommendation’) was removed. It was replaced by a simultaneous comparison of four tracks and a sentence that only counts the changes.
Free comparison of any two dates was kept as two frame choices, handling the same month and reversed order.
The field card was reduced to three fields that change the result. Removed were the notebook saving to the browser, the choice of observation point (it did not change the result) and the species fields (risk of apparent identification).
Kept is the distinction between an empty field, unknown water, dry ground and flooding after it has receded, together with the caveat that nothing here certifies access.
The Commons photograph is not embedded: the page works offline, and here there is a link instead. The photograph stands as a source, not as a dependency.