Coppicing

[Harty]

Hi, I look after a 23 acre woodland that started life as a railway. It became disused in the 1980s and I took it on some 16 years ago. There are a lot of trees and I have cleared a path (2 to 3 metres wide) through the middle to create a nature trail. The volunteer team has grown over the last year or so, and we are in a position to do a lot of thinning out of younger crowded trees, especially around solid mature trees. A debate has started as to how much tree should be left. I say that it should be cut at the base but others are saying that the stump will become a trip hazard and 3 or 4 foot of trunk should be left so people can see where the hazards are... Surely this cannot be good practice? I have goggled the question numerous times but cannot find any sort of answer, other than to cut at the base of the tree.

 

[Falstaff]

Others on here know about this sort of thing, not me. I would have thought a long term arboreal plan/advice from an expert would be best, and settle arguments. Part of that is a clear vision of what the woodland is for, and intended to become.
Do you actually want folk wandering around off trail? It can cause destruction of habitat and impact of the desired nature. Plus those who think they have a right to let their dogs roam and foul, and take fallen wood home. (Plus, plus, off road cyclists, oh, and wild campers, Who, Me?)
Since the new coppices will rise up from the base, I would think that will prevent it from becoming a trip hazard. As in France, cutting higher up can give a decorative effect, if not wood value.

 

[Buckshot]

If you google coppice vs pollard it might help
Both have merits and a place depending on the situation.

A long term plan is a good idea and helps to identify the short term goals as a result.

 

[Harty]

Well this is us... www.cawstongreenway.co.uk We also look after a bridleway that is about a mile long and connects, so probably getting on for 36 acres of lineal woodland. The widest part is about 80 metres so lots of edge and stuff... I'll have to map it all with the fieldmargin app.

 

[slowworm]

Thinning and coppicing are two different things. Thinning you don't want the tree to regrow, coppicing you do.

Depending to tree and use for the coppice products you would normally coppice the tree down to a few inches. I have seen stools (stumps) left higher up, say 1'-2' for reasons such as the woodland subject to flooding. 3'-4' isn't usual and may lead to an unnatural look.

As has been said, coppicing at a more normal height and keeping people off the stools and the whole area would seem best to me. You can use the brash to dead hedge the area. If you could track down a local coppicer they might be able to convince the doubters.

If you intend the trees to regrow you may need to protect the stools from browsing; deer & rabbits etc.

If you are planning on doing a large amount of work you may need a felling licence.

 

[Broch]

Hi, I look after a 23 acre woodland that started life as a railway. It became disused in the 1980s and I took it on some 16 years ago. There are a lot of trees and I have cleared a path (2 to 3 metres wide) through the middle to create a nature trail. The volunteer team has grown over the last year or so, and we are in a position to do a lot of thinning out of younger crowded trees, especially around solid mature trees. A debate has started as to how much tree should be left. I say that it should be cut at the base but others are saying that the stump will become a trip hazard and 3 or 4 foot of trunk should be left so people can see where the hazards are... Surely this cannot be good practice? I have goggled the question numerous times but cannot find any sort of answer, other than to cut at the base of the tree.

Hi Harty. I have been managing Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland for a little over 30 years. Ideas, advice, and considered best practice have changed over that period depending on the purpose(s) of managing the woodland. The one thing that is discussed at every forestry meeting these days is resilience. To achieve that you are aiming to have a wide diversity of species, ages, and structure.

The success of coppicing will depend on the species and ages of the trees being cut. Many trees do no coppice well when they are not cut until they are mature. On young trees you should be cutting close to the ground to encourage shooting from below the soil; on older stools you leave more stem/trunk and the new growth comes from buds on the stool. Coppicing will quickly give you a shrub understory (without browsing within a couple of years); Pollarding (at traditional height) will not provide that and will quickly increase the density of canopy - though some pollarding will at least provide a diversity of tree height.

Some areas you may decide to keep cut to provide permanent clearer areas; this requires repeated clearing of new growth. On an old railway line this will likely result in the development of bramble and thorn scrub which is a very valuable wildlife habitat but not much appreciated by the public unfortunately.

Then, of course, there's the whole aesthetic of woodland; new growth from stumps that are 3 to 4 ft high look very unnatural and in ancient woodland is something we try to avoid.

I encourage you to develop an overall management plan that people can buy into and one that can be reviewed and changed if needed. This will enable some level of continuity of objectives and methods. You can get some ideas towards that here: Managing-Woodland-for-Biodiversity-v4-i1.pdf

 

[mrmike]

Whilst your 2-3 meter wide nature trail should indeed be kept free of trip hazards, there should be no expectation that any woodland is trip hazards free at all. What are you going to do - go and pick up every fallen branch and strim down every but of bramble?

 

[Harty]

Some really useful and helpful advice here. Thank you so much.

Another novice question - If I thin out spindly trees, will the remaining ones put on girth, or is it too late, now that they are tall and skinny?

 

[Broch]

They will, eventually, subject to other conditions (aspect, soil quality etc.). It's a pretty standard management process for regenerative growth to let lots of (weed) sapling grow then thin out the weakest to give the strongest plenty of room.

 

[Buckshot]

Some really useful and helpful advice here. Thank you so much.

Another novice question - If I thin out spindly trees, will the remaining ones put on girth, or is it too late, now that they are tall and skinny?

Yes,
One of the common plans when planting new trees is to put them 1m apart.
Not because when they grow it will become a wall of tree trunks!
Some will die from natural causes, some will be eaten, some will be removed as part of the thinning process to allow the stronger trees to spread.
The idea is you end up with a woodland with nicely spaced (not too dense or sparce) trees of mature age. As those trees fall and create openings in the canopy so other saplings or seeds have the opportunity to fight to replace the old master.
Tis the circle of life... i feel like i should be stood on a rock holding a lion cub!

 

[Harty]

Yes,
One of the common plans when planting new trees is to put them 1m apart.
Not because when they grow it will become a wall of tree trunks!
Some will die from natural causes, some will be eaten, some will be removed as part of the thinning process to allow the stronger trees to spread.
The idea is you end up with a woodland with nicely spaced (not too dense or sparce) trees of mature age. As those trees fall and create openings in the canopy so other saplings or seeds have the opportunity to fight to replace the old master.
Tis the circle of life... i feel like i should be stood on a rock holding a lion cub!

Ideally, what sort of spacing are we looking for as the trees mature? I think I read 2metres+ somewhere, but with google, you can find so many different answers to a simple question...

Loin king is an amusing vision. I'll remember that when people complain about us clearing too many trees

 

[Buckshot]

Ideally, what sort of spacing are we looking for as the trees mature? I think I read 2metres+ somewhere, but with google, you can find so many different answers to a simple question...

Loin king is an amusing vision. I'll remember that when people complain about us clearing too many trees

Depends what you are trying to achieve in the woodland.
If it's a crop and will be harvested in the same way as a field of wheat, you want as dense as possible to get the maximum return so 1m is preferred - even if that means excluding every other species.
A mature mixed woodland you could get 10m or even 20m+ between trees.

Sometimes trying to put a number on it doesn't help.
Perhaps look at it from a different angle...
Is one tree stopping another from developing? If so, can you/ should you do something to help either of them?

 

[Harty]

Hi Harty. I have been managing Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland for a little over 30 years. Ideas, advice, and considered best practice have changed over that period depending on the purpose(s) of managing the woodland. The one thing that is discussed at every forestry meeting these days is resilience. To achieve that you are aiming to have a wide diversity of species, ages, and structure.

The success of coppicing will depend on the species and ages of the trees being cut. Many trees do no coppice well when they are not cut until they are mature. On young trees you should be cutting close to the ground to encourage shooting from below the soil; on older stools you leave more stem/trunk and the new growth comes from buds on the stool. Coppicing will quickly give you a shrub understory (without browsing within a couple of years); Pollarding (at traditional height) will not provide that and will quickly increase the density of canopy - though some pollarding will at least provide a diversity of tree height.

Some areas you may decide to keep cut to provide permanent clearer areas; this requires repeated clearing of new growth. On an old railway line this will likely result in the development of bramble and thorn scrub which is a very valuable wildlife habitat but not much appreciated by the public unfortunately.

Then, of course, there's the whole aesthetic of woodland; new growth from stumps that are 3 to 4 ft high look very unnatural and in ancient woodland is something we try to avoid.

I encourage you to develop an overall management plan that people can buy into and one that can be reviewed and changed if needed. This will enable some level of continuity of objectives and methods. You can get some ideas towards that here: Managing-Woodland-for-Biodiversity-v4-i1.pdf

Thank you for the link. Just managed to get to the Small Wood and Big Wood bits left to read. Absolutely brimming with best practices and ideas

 

[Harty]

Depends what you are trying to achieve in the woodland.
If it's a crop and will be harvested in the same way as a field of wheat, you want as dense as possible to get the maximum return so 1m is preferred - even if that means excluding every other species.
A mature mixed woodland you could get 10m or even 20m+ between trees.

Sometimes trying to put a number on it doesn't help.
Perhaps look at it from a different angle...
Is one tree stopping another from developing? If so, can you/ should you do something to help either of them?

We have no practical way of getting timber out of the site, so we have never tried to. What we want is a mixed woodland with a decent walk through the middle of it and a good mix of biodiversity. We have the path, which is about 3 metres wide and have started cutting scallops into the sides of the path. We have areas where we have path-grass-wildflower-rich margin-scrub-mature trees, but the scrub bit is way too much and the wildflower margins are not deep enough. This is the main thrust of the Sept onwards plan. The tree situation is just an unmanaged tangle of stuff with a lot of huge mature trees, so we would like to release the bigger trees and also get a lot more light onto the ground in the wooded areas to the side of the path. We haven't really had the manpower to tackle the wooded sides until now, so it really is a spaghetti. The path runs NE to SW so we scallop to try and get south facing pockets. We have also created a couple of glades which are currently full of wildflowers.

 

[Broch]

All sounds like good stuff

 

[Pattree]

Those scallops in the pathway are a great idea for us Wood Wanderers. They mean that the view and the light is always changing. So much better than a simple straight track but leaves you with vehicle access if you need it.

 

[TeeDee]

I have an Elder tree that is getting a little too big in the location it currently sits at.
I also need to rebuild a wall that it is leaning into somewhat so the coppicing seems justified from two angles.

Its on the bank of a good sized stream and gets plenty of sunlight so I'm hoping regrowth will be maximised.

Any do's and don'ts regarding coppicing Elder?

 

[Broch]

I have an Elder tree that is getting a little too big in the location it currently sits at.
I also need to rebuild a wall that it is leaning into somewhat so the coppicing seems justified from two angles.

Its on the bank of a good sized stream and gets plenty of sunlight so I'm hoping regrowth will be maximised.

Any do's and don'ts regarding coppicing Elder?

Don't forget, you have to ask the tree's permission; Elder brings bad luck, even death, if cut without its permission

 

[Pattree]

It’s awful hard NOT to coppice elder

……. but take precautions suggested by Broch!

 

[Harty]

Hi, on having a really good look at the tree types on our patch, we have a lot of hawthorn and blackthorn that constantly self-seed. I'm obviously never going to create that "straight trunk" forest look, but is there a way of getting these trees to grow upwards, rather than in a spaghetti tangle? Would raising the crown help? Or just space to naturally grow upwards? We have other areas where we have apsen, oak and ash, so would it be worth moving self-seeded whips into the areas with dominant hawthorn and clearing the dense knotty stuff? Thanks in advance.