Exciting isn't it? - in a slow ponderous sort of way
My wife and I have been on a couple of courses (me fungi identification and her woodland plants) and what I have really learnt is the subjects are huge!
I have one smaller piece of woodland I have owned for 24 years that I have experimented with (some would say neglected). It had been grazed by sheep for a very long time - maybe a hundred years or more. It had no understory at all and all the trees were the same age but it did include some large areas of primrose and wood anemone. It was bordered on two sides by grazed rough grass. The first thing I did was exclude the sheep. Then I planted trees each side on the grass to blend the environments a little. Since then, other than some gentle management it's been left. The result after 24 years is strong growth of understory, hazel, holly, young trees etc. Plenty of self-seeded cherry, birch, ash and oak. We now get small areas of bluebell that were missing before. But... no primroses!!
My point being that, although I have increased the habitat range, I may not have increased the biodiversity.
However, both the small wood and the new wood (we've had for just over a year) are rich in fungi, ferns, mosses and liverworts as well as an unfathomable number of invertebrate species that I have no chance of recording in my lifetime - who knows what I would be destroying if I 'opened the canopy'. So, my plan is to identify the major habitat areas, leave alone what cannot be improved and gently manage any improvement elsewhere. By recording change I remain accountable
It's probably important to point out that my plan for the woods is entirely for conservation albeit I'll be taking some windfall fuel and craft materials out of it. If the plan was for a resource-productive wood my priorities would be slightly different.