Woodland - managed or not

[Pattree]

@TLM
I hope you will forgive me for shifting this discussion from Steve’s New Year post.

In Finland about 101 % of forestry papers are industrially oriented. While there may be some I have never met a study of how to found or take care of a non_industrial_production forest area. I have my own experiment on about 5 hectares but it has been guess work all the way.

Are there real studies and guidelines in the UK how to do it?

Here in UK recreation is rapidly overtaking production in our major forests. Only 19% of our timber requirements are home grown and significantly less than 10% of our hardwood needs (I don’t know the exact figure but I cannot imagine that it has increased over the years.) Their is a lot literature and discussion on people access/management and public activity in forests.

As to the “management” of “natural” woodland - well that is a very varied practice. I don’t have any books on it but I’ve been in discussions that range from “leave it alone” to intensive and invasive research.

I’d be very interested in the view of folk here and in their experience. Perhaps we can provide TLM with a text

 

[TLM]

I hope you will forgive me for shifting this discussion from Steve’s New Year post.

No problem there, this really is a different subject.

 

[Broch]

This is an up to date document from a respected source

 

[Pattree]

I suppose that once you decide to take responsibility for woodland you make a couple of decisions:

To whom or what am I responsible?

To what purpose am I managing this land?

After that you can start to ask appropriate questions.

 

[Falstaff]

There's quite a lot on the Forestry Commission site, looks relevant,e.g. how to create a woodland management plan, approvals, templates. All aimed at non-industrial woodlands

Also this: https://cdn.forestresearch.gov.uk/2025/01/FRRN046.pdf

 

[Broch]

That's the document I linked above - it is a good starting point. Though, unfortunately, they still prefer trees planted in rows

 

[TLM]

I have to start reading all that.

My aim is as mixed species forest as possible and if possible to find a half way stable configuration. The latter is nearly impossible here because of Norway spruce, it tends to conquer everything except the driest areas. In the south the present view is that the forest is cyclic. In the middle there are some areas that have not been cut or touched for 300 years, at least some parts there seem to have reached a somewhat stable state. In the north there are areas that have been untouched but all the ones that I have visited tend to be one species only.

I also have reintroduced some species, Macedonian pine and Serbian spruce that still have not found their way back after the ice age.

 

[Pattree]

Nothing wrong with initially planting in straight lines. It means that you can find the buggers in the bracken and briars so that you can manage the light and keep some account of what’s going on. If you are well rabbited you can beat up in the following year.

Once you’ve done your first thinning the lines are not so evident. After second thinning they simply aren’t there.

I did a lot of amenity planting in Matlock Forest. We mixed species as we ascended the hills but they would have been smothered by rhododendron if we hadn’t known where to find them.

 

[Broch]

Yep, old forestry principles now being questioned by many conservationists. Even woodland with duel, biodiversity and commercial, use is now being planted using 'seeded' patterns and random spacing. Just because it was done for a long time in the past does not make it right or the best.

I suspect we will not agree on this, but I am talking and working with ecologists and conservationist every week about habitat generation, restoration, and management. I can assure you, even with forestry experts, planting in rows is no longer the preferred structure unless you are tied to a Government grant being dictated to by people sitting in offices.

Sorry, this is all a bit too close to my daily activity for me to take a back seat

 

[TeeDee]

That's the document I linked above - it is a good starting point. Though, unfortunately, they still prefer trees planted in rows

Branch line?

 

[Pattree]

Sorry, this is all a bit too close to my daily activity for me to take a back seat

That’s fine.

 

[Falstaff]

After the Swinley Forest fire they realised they need more natural firebreaks and planted a lot of decidous trees using volunteer labour. For economic ease they dragged a hook in a line, with some curves, to create the trench for the saplings. As a firebreak it necessarily has to be a line (or 2 lines I think it was).

Been a few years now, think I'll go have a looksee....

 

[Tengu]

My place of work, we have woodlands, but its different.

So, we have a Forest Garden, a Coppice and an Arboretum.

(Im sure there is more, not my department)

Each has a different way to manage it.

Its all for leisure but we are also using it as a resource.

 

[Pattree]

Hmmmmm
This has given rise to a thought, well a brain fart really:

Should I avoid conflating Ancient Woodland with ancient trees?

I could imagine a few very old trees growing in an area that has relatively recently been reclaimed as woodland.

I can also imagine an area growing relatively young trees from which wood has been harvested for, say, four or five hundred years.

I have no view on this; it’s just a thought that has been promoted by this thread.
It doesn’t matter of course. To quote @Mesquite - “It is what it is”. I don’t suppose the trees care what we monkeys call them

 

[Broch]

Well, for a start, there is very little true ancient woodland; there are quite a few ancient trees. But, as you know different species qualify for that term at different ages.

Most of the 'ancient' woodland we have is really classified as Ancient Semi Natural Woodland which, in England and Wales means there has been woodland on the site since the 1600s. My woods are classified a ASNW but the oldest tree is only about 200 to 250 years old; most of the mature trees are between 80 and 150 years old.

However, the soil, the fungus, the ecosystem it sits in may well be thousands of years old. It's not just the trees that make an ancient woodland and you certainly don't need ancient trees for the woodland to be classified as ancient

You're right, nature doesn't give a fig - it will still be doing its thing long after we have gone!

 

[HillBill]

Well, for a start, there is very little true ancient woodland; there are quite a few ancient trees. But, as you know different species qualify for that term at different ages.

Most of the 'ancient' woodland we have is really classified as Ancient Semi Natural Woodland which, in England and Wales means there has been woodland on the site since the 1600s. My woods are classified a ASNW but the oldest tree is only about 200 to 250 years old; most of the mature trees are between 80 and 150 years old.

However, the soil, the fungus, the ecosystem it sits in may well be thousands of years old. It's not just the trees that make an ancient woodland and you certainly don't need ancient trees for the woodland to be classified as ancient

You're right, nature doesn't give a fig - it will still be doing its thing long after we have gone!

Which is what alluded to in the other thread.

We can't grow an ancient woodland, we cant plant one. But we can 'seed' one. And by that i mean, we can plant the foundations in which one will develop... but we wont live to see it. Fast growing trees with far spreading seed... Birch, Ash, dare i say it, Sycamore etc.... They will fix the soil with nutrients over their lives and allow the development of Mycelium in the sub soil, attract the fauna that matter and pave the way for those slower growing patriarchs of proper ancient woodland.

 

[Falstaff]

The idea of unchecked sycamore seeding makes me twitch, battled with that for years in the garden!

I'm aware that there are forms of fungal war between different Mycelium. Does current research enable us to identify say, tree types with non-conflicting Mycelium, to enable faster establishment or further spread, and thereby faster reforestation? Ultimately of course there will come a time and conflict, that's nature.
I've got a vague recollection of an african tree that prevents other tree types from growing near to it.

 

[Pattree]

Some mycelia are specific but there are general ones as well.

I have not heard of any problems related to mycelia conflict in any arboretums in this country. All sorts of trees rubbing shoulders.

I was told that eucalyptus, introduced by Haile Selassie into Ethiopia, wiped out the local acacia related species wherever it was planted but I have no reference.

 

[Falstaff]

It's not a problem per se, it's just like different trees fighting for light, they all rub along. I just wondered if it was possible to give nature a leg up in re-establishing in an area by planting particular tree or bushes.

Yes, I think that was the case I heard of, I know it involved the acacia.

 

[Laurentius]

I dunno, nature is brutal at times I have seen the damage of storm Darragh at Lake Vyrnwy.