'Conifer Trees Get The Chop'

[Moonraker]

From the Guardian Unlimited online today:

Conifer trees get the chop

The Forestry Commission will announce tomorrow that up to 20 million trees considered to be the wrong species in the wrong place will be felled over the next 20 years to be replaced by species such as oak, ash and beech.

Well, personally it seems an important first step towards repairing the damage done by ill-conceived grants/ tax breaks given out to landowners in the 60's-70's and restoring a more visually sympathetic and more beneficial natural habitat using native species. Good news for the next generation. I just hope that the grants and funding also provide wider access to our woodlands.

 

[anthonyyy]

As long as they do replace the conifers with more "suitable" trees I am for it. However, in my opinion, conifers are, in many environments, better than no trees at all.

 

[Ranger Bob]

in my opinion, conifers are, in many environments, better than no trees at all.

Not always, the east anglian Breckland, which is now occupied by the vastness of Thetford forest (mostly Corsican pine, ugh) was once (within the last hundred years) an area of heathland, with the planting of trees most of this has been destroyed and many species of plant and insects are in danger of extinction. Migratory birds have also lost an over wintering ground. Until the 1920's trees had not grown here in large numbers since the neolithic, so consiquently nature had adapted to a heathland enviroment. Very little heathland remains here and it my hope that when the FC comes to fell trees in the future that the heathland will in some places be allowed to regenerate.

 

[Ahjno]

Big step into the right direction!
Although I hope they don't replace all the coniferus trees / woods though, I really like coniferus woods - but hey I'm not a UK resident Would be great though if they didn't replace them all: in that way we've (you've) got a more variety type of land to practice in

Another small wish: please please please don't plant those new trees in nice and orderly straight lines ...

Ooh, BTW - do those new species come from tescos?? LOL

 

[Eric_Methven]

Good news indeed. I'd love to see many more broadleafed woodlands being generated, both for coppicing and wildlife habitat - and the pair can happily coexist side by side.

Scots pine should of course be kept but I agree that too many non native species should be carefully removed and replaced - including Sycamore which was introduced to these islands by the Romans.

Eric

 

[Tony]

It's forward thinking for a change Although we'll not get to see it in all it's splendor.......I bet it will look beautiful when it's all mature

 

[jamesdevine]

I read something recently in an irish paper that they are planning to do something similar here. But they have identified that the older plantations have become an important habitate in their own right so it won't be a blanket clearence and re planting.

The floors of the pine plantations might be dead and silent but the canopies are often alive with a wide varity of insects and birds(is right to get rid of their homes as well). Tinning them out and taking out the uniform rows of the original planting has shown to greatly improve diversity of the woodland and quality of the timber. By simply letting nature take it's course it has shown great improvments.

There are better grants of farmers growing mix or complete broadleaf woodland now here as well. I belief.

All Good.

James

 

[redflex]

Schemes by the FC have often been introduced as a way to protect the FC.

In the past when the FC has been endangered it has come up with a fashionable ways to keep itself in a job.

With the decline of the Uk timber industry, flooded with low grade timber only good for pulp. The FC has to find new ways to be needed.

Has anyone notice how the FC now spends more on recreation (holiday homes, bike trails etc) than timber production?

 

[arctic hobo]

More native conifers would be nice... they replace the oak and the beech, but never the coniferous woodland. People often think that the grey squirrel replaced the red - it didn't, because they don't eat the same food, live in the same places or have the same habits. It's just that grey squirrels like broadleafed woodland while reds prefer conifers, so we only ever really see greys now. There's a big hole where there should be conifers.

 

[Ranger Bob]

More native conifers would be nice... they replace the oak and the beech, but never the coniferous woodland. People often think that the grey squirrel replaced the red - it didn't, because they don't eat the same food, live in the same places or have the same habits. It's just that grey squirrels like broadleafed woodland while reds prefer conifers, so we only ever really see greys now. There's a big hole where there should be conifers.

That raises an interesting question i've read about in books by Oliver Rackham......Consider that most of Britain was covered by broadleaf forest, surely then the native red squirrel would prefer broadleaf woodland. The north American red, however does inhabit coniferous woodland!?!?!

 

[Moonraker]

More native conifers would be nice... they replace the oak and the beech, but never the coniferous woodland. People often think that the grey squirrel replaced the red - it didn't, because they don't eat the same food, live in the same places or have the same habits. It's just that grey squirrels like broadleafed woodland while reds prefer conifers, so we only ever really see greys now. There's a big hole where there should be conifers.

I am not sure that is correct Chris. From what I have read the Grey Squirrel is main reason the native Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in declining rapidly in numbers, as the range of the non-native Grey Squirrel (imported into Britain from North America between 1876 and 1929). Basically the grey squirrel is a much more efficient forager and it does compete directly with the red squirrel for the same food where they both live. Also it lives at a greater density per hectare than the red squirrel, which is a fairly timid creature and lives a more solitary lifestyle and the grey squirrel carries a stress-related disease or Parapox virus which it is resistant too but the red is not. Thus there is a strong correlation between encroachment of the grey into the reds' territory and the laters' subsequent demise.

There is a nicely put together web page on the Red Squirrel here with a lot more detail on this:

Red Squirrels - Species Fact Files

Before the introduction of the grey squirrel the red had adapted readily to the native broadleaved woods of Britain. The site makes a nice note on this:

Red squirrels reappeared in the British Isles at the end of the last Ice Age, about 10-15,000 years ago, when they crossed what is now the English Channel. Britain was then covered by birch and pine forest, which spread northwards as the ice retreated, and the squirrels followed. About 7,000 years ago the land-bridge between Britain, Ireland and Europe was flooded by the sea, and further colonisation was prevented. The red squirrels continued to spread through Britain and Ireland, and adapted to the increasing pine forest. As the climate warmed, broadleaved trees such as oak spread northwards, and the red squirrels adapted to an increasingly diverse habitat. Eventually, pine forest was replaced in most areas by broadleaved woodlands, which the red squirrels took to readily.

You are right that where native conifer forest existed then this should be preserved and restored, however, especially with climate change and global warming, the range of the pine is being increasingly pushed north, much as it after the last Ice Age, therefore there is a limit to where conifer forests can be established effectively. And another large factor is the disappearance and especially the fragmentation of surviving woodland which impacts on the ability of species including the red squirrel to retain a healthy gene pool and have the ability to range over a wide area when food becomes limited.

We are fortunate enough to have a good population of red squirrels in France especially in areas like the Aveyron where there is a high density of woodland and they can be found both in the local oak and beech woods as in the conifer forests up into the Massif Central. But even here the decimation of the native red squirrel population in Italy from similar misguided introductions threatens to sweep over the Alps into France and the rest of Europe.

When will we learn to stop messing with our already battered native wildlife

Just a comment on your post redflex, Perhaps it is as much the case that the FC are actually responding to the changing role of the countryside in Britain? and that this initiative should help towards providing more of what we all appreciate, which is native woodland & forest. Managed not only for profit but also for conservation and recreation (and lets hope, eventually lead to more open access). The FC are not perfect and there have certainly been mistakes made in the past, but I prefer to look to the future and this seems to me to be moving in an encouraging direction. Perhaps it does not give us an immediate benefit right now but it should for our kids.

 

[bambodoggy]

When I worked as an Outdoor Instructor in a place called "Little Canada" on the IoW we were surrounded with Red Squirrels and the field studies mob on site were always going on about them... From what I remember them telling me I think Moonraker is correct and I'd also like to add that Red Squirrels have a definate winter hibination whereas the grey squirrels don't (they do a bit but they also get up from time to time to go out and eat...)
Because of this, another of the problems was that the Grey's were up and about during the winter and finding and eating the Red's food stash...

 

[anthonyyy]

The issue isn’t quite as simple as it may seem. It would be wonderful if the land were covered by native woodland. But the reality is that most land is expected to give an economic return for the landowner.
It might well be that other crops, which are more environmentally damaging, might replace coniferous woodlands.

If an acre of coniferous woodland were to be replaced by an acre of native trees or heathland or whatever that would be positive.
Unfortunately it is simplistic to presume that native trees would replace coniferous woodland.

A myth seems to have developed that such forests are a sterile poison habitat.

From an environmental point of view coniferous woodland offers potentially several advantages: e.g. renewable raw materials and fuel, CO2 absorption, recreational use and a habitat for wildlife - granted not as rich a habitat as native woodland - but nevertheless, in my opinion, considerably better than other forms of agriculture.
Is an acre of coniferous forest worse than an acre of intensively grown maize or a hillside overgrazed by sheep?

 

[Tantalus]

I have to say I have never been a fan of blanket monoculture plantations

Sitka spruce has often been the tree of choice in Scotland, but its sterile wood floor and uniform tree size and shape, although better than no trees, is pretty uninteresting

Glad to hear they will be replaced - in fact are already being replaced

Funny thing is that when the trees are felled, the ground very quickly resprouts with all kinds of plants that have presumably remained dormant, ferns birch and blaeberries as well as heather. What was one year a clearfelled area of stumps looks next year pleasantly green.

The forrestry commision was something set up fairly hastily (at the end of WW2? or just after i think) to fill the forecast demand for timber and wood pulp for paper industry

I guess looking at the surplus 60 or so years on it has been quite a success, and i think it is nice that instead of being disbanded, they are able to turn their attention to using forests as amenities for all, and now have the luxury of being able to plant slower growing (but nicer IMHO) indigenous species.

I guess the fact that we have trees at all is down to them so we should be grateful even if they are blimmin sctratchy sitka spruce

And how unusual of a government department to be able to reinvent itself and adapt with the times, good one guys

Tant

 

[george]

anthonyyy - I agree that I would much rather see conifers than no tree's at all and IMO you're right when you say the issue isn't quite as simple as it seems.


I'm involved (to a small extent) with a project in my area that intends to cut down several thousand hectares of block planted conifers and replace them with native species, and there are a number of issues that we are having to deal with in order to get things moving.

The conifers were planted in the 60's and 70's as part of the tax relief scheme. They were never managed and have gradually fallen into such disrepair that parts of them are dangerous to be in.
This means that the value of the timber is limited and that the cost of extraction is very high. Add to that the fact that we are over a hundred miles away from the nearest pulp mill, much of it on single track roads, and you can see that the extraction just doesn't make economic sense for the landowners to do anything about it. It appears that after selling it on, even the highest quality Larch will end up costing the landowners somewhere in the region of £2 per ton. After the January storms this year there are several thousand tons lying on the ground - they have effectively no value whatsoever even as pulp - but they still have to be extracted. I can understand totally why the landowners have hesitated until now to do anything.

There are obviously a number of grants available to help sort out situations like this - however if the landowner is a private individual or a company then the grant is only part of the overall cost. Absolutely fine if the grant is the difference between breaking even or making a loss - it encourages landowners to sort out the mess but ensures that they wont be too much out of pocket by doing so and the rest of us benefit from having decent woodlands usually with an access policy attached to the grant.

However in this case (and I'm sure in many others) the landowners are a charity who have very limited income and who would be ruined by having to pay £2 per ton for extraction.
So in order to pay for the extraction they have to get a grant package together that will pay for 100% of the work. This means going into partnership with the local community, as a community organisation can attract grants that a landowner just couldn't access.

The long and short of it then is that the ability of the landowner to determine what happens on their land is determined in turn by the energy of the community in getting a community organisation up and running and continuing to manage the various projects that will be funded as a result. It is intended that the cleared areas will be planted with native woods appropriate to the area and that "wildlife corridors" will be planted to link the various blocks together. For this to work the new woods will have to be actively managed and how do you pay for that? Well usually with another grant, but the landowners can't attract the same level of grant funding that the community can so either they have to ensure that the wood is managed to make a profit so it can pay for itself or they have to link up with the community to get together a long term management plan that will be sustained by volunteer labour and by grant funding for the foreseeable future.

Trying to make a profit from the woods funded by grants would put them in a catch 22 situation, if you want to make a profit you cant get 100% grant, but if you don't get 100% grant you cant afford to do the job, and if you want the forest to grow (like you committed to when you accepted the grant) then you need to make a profit to fund the ongoing management.

This means the only real option is to put it into community management.

In situations like this all over the country landowners are being told "we will pay for you to get out of the mess that the 60s and 70s got you into, but in return you need to hand over some control of your woods to the local community" I wonder if they saw that coming when they took the tax breaks back then?

George

 

[Ogri the trog]

They're just copying me,
A few years ago we moved to a house on top of a mountain that has a conifer wood to the west as a weather barrier. Most of it is way too overgrown and needs a little management, so I've been thinning them out and re-planting with native species. I'll have to keep some form of evergreen protection for the house through the winter months when broadleaf trees offer little weather resistance.

It will be good to see other trees replacing the sanitised rows of impenetrable conifers.

Ogri the trog

 

[FeralSheryl]

I wholeheartedly welcome the return of our Broadleaf Woodlands. Nothing so beautiful in all the world in my view and nothing feels more like home. I can but hope they'll make the transition with minimal disruption to the local wildlife though.

Another project to increase the range of the Caledonian pinewood forests in Scotland would be welcome too, if that were possible. Conifers are magnificent where they're best suited.

But nothing would make me happier then to see the return of the Wildwood.
Yeah, I know...

 

[Tantalus]

interesting fact about woodlands

I lived in Germany for 10 years where they have a lot of natural scots pine forest ( and some spectacular other types of forest but i never got to wander them as much)

Wild boar were also common where I was , and it was interesting to see the natural regeneration of scots pine in areas where the boar had been scratching

There is a definite connection between natural regeneration and the wild boar

I heard a similar story about the new forrest, some farmer had discovered it was his right to let his pigs forage on the beech mast and proceeded to do so much to the horror of local conservationists. Subsequent regeneration in the area was much higher than in other untouched areas.

Just shows how little we sometimes know about nature in general imho, but it is one of the best reasons i can think of for reintroducing wild boar

Yes they are sometimes destructive, but the caledonian forest has been struggling for years, perhaps this is one of the reasons?

Tant

 

[FeralSheryl]

The Wild Boar population in the Uk is actually on the increase and predictably upsetting the farmers. No offence to any Farmers out there but I sometimes feel that if they had their way they'd kill very living thing in the Countryside except their 'Livestock'. I heard somewhere that they think the New Forest Pony is becoming a 'problem' too! Good Grief!

Once upon a time we had Wolves, Bears and even the Lynx. Imagine the thrill of it. I'd like to see them all back where they belong.

 

[george]

No offence to any Farmers out there but I sometimes feel that if they had their way they'd kill very living thing in the Countryside except their 'Livestock'.
.

OOH

I'll try hard not to take offence Sheryl, but I'm a farmer (crofter) and thats a gross generalisation

George