Managed woodland?

[lottie.lou]

The rangers of my local nature reserve seem to be busy 7 days a week chopping down and planting things, I even heard they plan to cull the local deer if their numbers increase any more because they eat the saplings.
Am I missing something, Id love to know if I am. What's the point of it all? Nature managed to cope for a good time before we came along so what's changed? What would happen if they didn't manage the forests? The only thing I can think of is that the introduced plants might overcrowd the native ones, is this right?

 

[TallMikeM]

most of our "natural" woodland has been managed since forever (much like the New Forest were actually hunting reserves for the Nroman invaders). Left to itself, woodland will very quicky become bramble choked jungle.

 

[bushyboo]

the reason they cull the deer is because we killed off thier natural peredators so there is nothing to keep the numbers down. I dont know what it is like in your woodland but they might be felling the non native speices to make way for native ones

 

[British Red]

Of course woodland needs to be managed - for a variety of reasons. If the trees are to be harvested, they need to be managed as a crop. If not, careful removal of, for example, non natives (Rhodedron bashing is hard work but without it many British species are choked out).

The deer have no natural predators left which is a problem of them over breeding, destroying the habitat and then starving in large numbers unless the weak and old are weeded out and numbers managed.

Red

 

[spamel]

You wanna see how managed german woodland is! You walk for miles with nothing but pine, then it suddenly changes to birch for miles, then more pine for a few miles, then oak for miles, then..yadda yadda yadda!

Also, the germans are forever hunting their deer and boar, we have to maintain a control as we killed all of the animals that used to do it for us. Beech woodland seems to do OK with regards to brambles, but I've seen other bits of woodland that is impassible due to the lack of management.

Good work if you can get it, out doors all day using tools, a satisfying job.

 

[andy_e]

I seem to remember a TV program, where Michael Heseltine (I think) was taken to what was claimed to be the last remaining bit of true wild woodland in the UK, basically one small island in the Highlands somewhere which looked to be only a few acres. It's important to remember that pretty much nowhere in the UK is untouched my our (species) hands, and I think that's why we have to manage our woodlands. In my eye it's the difference between the Amazon and Kew Gardens, then again given a few hundred years or so without us around and I'm sure the forests would be doing just fine.

 

[Surrey Yeoman]

As others have alluded to, woodland has to be managed or it will, in the short term, around 10 - 20 years, just become an impenetrable mass of brambles and dense secondary growth. If left alone it would take probably 200 - 300 years to regenerate into what we regard as "ancient forest," with large broadleaf trees dominating the wood and by their deciduous life cycle, providing the open forest floor beloved of the woodland flowering plants such as bluebells etc.

It's a bit like the situation with primary and secondary jungle. Primary jungle is a joy to be in, cool, open and shaded, whereas secondary jungle, where the trees have been cut / cleared and then the ground left to its own devices is a tangled, steamy, sweaty, impenetrable mess!

"Shoulders back lovely boy, shoulders back! Now sing Lofty, sing!"

 

[British Red]

Whispering Grasssssss

Don't tell the Treeeeees............

 

[Toadflax]

Although I know nothing about deer population management so I can't comment on whether or not it is a good thing, I have heard from a few sources (e.g. http://www.basc.org.uk/) that the deer population in Britain is thought to be at its highest level for 1000 years (i.e. since before William the Conqueror had an outing over here).


Geoff

 

[Sickboy]

Read an article the other day in private eye about the RSPB and it's nature reserves. Thay had been saying (with good reason) that some of the rarer birds, lapp wings i think were disapearing from these precious areas at a shocking rate each year, with the exception of one reserve where the population had jumped by 500% in a couple of years. The RSPB hadnt mentioned this, strange with such a success.Turned out the Ranger had been doing the rounds since his arrival with his shotgun
There are alot of mammals around these areas with no natural predators that have a taste for ground nesting bird egg's. Hence the dramatic difference between one reserve and all the others. Problem being is that a lot of the RSPB's membership are to say the least averse to shooting wildlife
We have such small area's of greenery in this country that it's up to us to keep the balance when nature no longer can.....

 

[robin wood]

I spent 8 years "managing" ancient woodland for the National Trust before becoming a self employed woodworker. I'd like to make a couple of points,

I think Lottie Lou's original question is very interesting and no one has really answered it. What happened before human intervention?
Woodland historians call the woodland cover before human intervention "wildwood". In Europe we would have a mixed woodland with mixed age trees, ocasionally an old tree would die or a storm would blow a tree down which would let light to the woodland floor, for a few years there would be a flush of wild floweres and a host of tree seedlings then the seedlings would grow and 15 years later fill the gap in the canopy.
The last remaining example of woodland that is very close to wildwood in Europe is Bialowieza in Eastern Poland universaly praised for its diversity of habitats and wildlife.

Now in Britain most woodlands were incredibly heavily managed in the medieval period...cut on rotation most every 15-20 years for firewood production with a few trees being left for 3 rotations and felled at 45-60 years perfect for timber frame houses. When we developed the empire and started importing cheap incredible timbers from the colonies british woodland management declined (that is it became less economic to cut the trees) So what do you do? if you leave that woodland alone it does not "quickly become bramble choked jungle" quite the contrary it all ages together so you get an even aged canopy with little ground flora. Epping Forest is a good example bought by the corporation of London in the late 19th century they stopped tree cutting, 90 years later they had the problem of an aging tree population with no young ones coming to replace them, people love woods like this because there is little light reaching the woodland floor and you can walk through them easily...wildlife does not like it because there are fewer spring flowers for the insects to feed on, fewer thickety bits for the birds to nest in and nowhere to hide when the sparrowhawk bops through.

So what happens is conservationists try to "properly manage" the woodland, this can mean anything from reintroducing coppicing to just taking an odd tree out every now and then to let the light in and increase the diversity of species. In fact if we look to Bialowieza as the ideal probably the quickest and most cost effective route there is just pop in every 5 years and take down 3% of the trees and leave them where they fall to rot. Do nothing else and natural regeneration will do the rest.

The public don't like that they prefer tidy woods and replanting. I started in woodland work clearing the windblown trees in kent after the "great storm" of 1987. The public poured money into "saving the woodlands", 2 years I cut and replanted now that area looks pretty much like any other secondary woodland, 20 year old birch with a "standard broadleaf mix" dotted between. Thankfully we also left a 50 hectare "non intervention zone' and that is a sight to see. The natural regen has come up through the fallen trees which still lie rotting away, its a far more interesting diverse bit of woodland but not so good for an afternoon stroll or a picnick. For more info on woodland history I would recomend Oliver Rackam "trees and woodland in the British Landscape" or "a history fo the countryside"


Finally I am surprised at the number of responses here clearly regarding bramble as a negative thing in woodland.
"bramble choked jungle"
"Beech woodland seems to do OK with regards to brambles"
"an impenetrable mass of brambles"
Most woodland managers these days and all conservationists actively encourage bramble as one of the most important early nectar sources in woodland ground flora. Most woodland management involves cutting trees to let light in to the woodland floor which creates a much denser ground flora and gives natural regeneration a chance. Its also great for cordage and fruit so I would have thought bushcrafters would have been pro bramble too.

 

[lottie.lou]

Thats really interesting, thankyou!

 

[andy_e]

That's what I love about this place, a thread starts and encourages useful and clearly well informed contribution, many thanks Robin.

I don't think there's an anti-bramble sentiment per se, it's just that it's quite difficult to set up a hammock in a giant bramble patch

 

[Nightwalker]

Knowing very little about woodland-management, I've found this a great read. I have often pondered what practices are best for woodland and wildlife growth.

 

[Arth]

Brambles are useful in any woodland firstly they help protect saplings from deer and secondly provide fruit for small mammals. Once the saplings have closed the canopy brambles will die back, yes brambles are a pain when you are trying to work but will grow back very quickly.
Deer still have one species that have a natural predator, humans. I have a a deer problem in my woods because they don't allow for any natural regen all I've one part of the woods is short stubby saplings, 13 years ago the woodland was allowed to regenerate.
Managing woodland is the way forward it's a renewable material and far better than importing it from the other side of the world.

 

[Nightwalker]

I would love a guide to the basics of woodland management techniques, anyone know of any good resources online or a book? 'dummies guide to woodland management' perhaps? Would just like to learn what practices promote growth in certain areas and environments and why etc.

 

[Mirius]

Funnily enough I'd be interested in that sort of thing too. Only last night I was looking at the Woodland Trusts five year management plan for my local wood and wondering why they seemed happy with the sycamore saplings that they comment in the plan as being there. In the last couple of weeks I see someone has made paint marks on some of them near one of the entrances, but I haven't a clue why, especially as they've also marked a hornbeam sapling.

 

[robin wood]

Glad folk found that useful...do read Rackam the history of the countryside book is fantastic.it just helps you understand so much about why Suffolk is so different from Kent, which hedges are 1000 years old and which 150 and so much more.

Arth how do you deal with your "deer problem"? I know a lot of folk think that culling is the answer. I have no ethical problem with culling deer or cutting trees though it is actually very difficult to significantly reduce a deer population to the extant that you would notice a reduced level of browsing regrowth and of course its only killing females that reduces the population. Young shoots of regrowing coppice stumps seem to be the tastiest thing growing in a wood, I have cut coppice and been very happy with the regrowth for several months then one morning its all munched. One deer on one morning can munch a lot of regrowing stumps so I am not sure population density has a great effect on regrowth (though I would be very happy to see objective research results on the matter)

At Hatfield Forest we used to cut 4 hectares of coppice a year, had about 200 fallow plus muntjack on 500 hectares we used to brash pile the stumps (pile the tops from the cut trees on them to make it more difficult for the deer to get to the regrowth) this reduced browse damage enough for the regrowth to get away in a couple of years. If you are working with smaller cutting areas browse damage can be more intensive though it rarely kills trees normaly just means it takes say 4 years to reach 6 ft regrowth instead of 2. In the medieval period coppice areas were fenced out for 5 years to allow the regrowth to get away. One of the nicest small scale solutions I saw was making a number of small fenced enclosures, I don't understand why but a deer does not like jump into an enclosure where it can see the fence on the far side. At Knowle deer park sevenoaks we had post and wire fenced enlosures 25m diameter and only 3 feet high the deer could easily have jumped in but they did not despite short cropped grass outside and lush grass and regrowth inside. I have seen the same thing work with a nice woven dead hedge made from the tops.

 

[Risclean]

The degree of intervention in conservation management of woodland is a complex subject. Another book that covers this subject is Natural Woodland by George Peterken (a very good book). There's also a new Collins New Naturalist on Woodland which was written by Oliver Rackham, I've not read it but I'd be surprised if it's anything but good.

People often say that any given habitat HAS to be managed (gamekeepers and foresters are frequent culprits). As I see it the situation is not that simple. If you are managing land for a particular purpose (eg forestry, game, agriculture, conservation) a greater or lesser degree of management/intervention will be needed depending on the habitat and your goals. This does not mean that it would be some sort of disaster or betrayal to leave land unmanaged for natural processes to take their course. This applies to heavily modified and artificial habitats as much as primary and old growth woodland. There's a very interesting essay called "Edgelands" by Marion Shoard on the wildlife of unban wasteland, abandoned industrial sites, quarries etc.

Obviously there a certain exceptions where rare species or habitats could be lost without any management.

 

[Sickboy]

A couple of weekends ago i found myself in a woodland that as far as i can tell is not, nor has been looked after for quite some time, mainly chestnut but some of which had been blown down (probably in the last hurricane, some areas cleared and replanted (with ever greens) others left be. To be honest the place is a mess, other than a breeding ground for mushrooms and cover for the deer it has no purpose but to be green. It's up for sale for around a 3rd of a million for a 100 acre's. whoever buys it are going to need to spend a lot of time sorting it out. I've never seen a wood like it, really grim and dark