Trees and the future, what should we plant?

[corylus]

I have just been reading the thread about planting a new woodland in Essex and a statement on there reminded me to ask the above question.

 

In the thread one contributor said "plant natives". Nothing wrong in that BUT......

 

I have been thinking about this for a number of years having being very pro-native planter but have started wondering recently if we can continue to focus on our native trees. We have seen imported diseases cause massive problems for elm alder and now ash. In Swaledale where I live, if our ashes and alder go all we will have left as mature large trees is sycamore, which most believe is not native, but which grows very well up here. That's NO NATIVE large trees left in our landscape. I find that worrying.

 

Along with the above is another thing which concerns me. If we are happy not to limit population size, should we not be planting trees which provide food ie fruit trees (apples pears etc) flour/protein trees (sweet chestnut cobnut etc) as well as more soft woods for our timber usage rather than a diminishing number of (currently major disease free) natives?

 

I don't know the answer to this so would welcome any comments. I have tried to be brief and simplistic in the above but please try and think about the bigger longer term picture.

[Peasgood]

If planting trees I would go for Ash then Sycamore. Ash has been temporarily ruled out due to dieback risk, so that leaves Sycamore.

Population numbers don't enter into it in my opinion because as far as I can see we have no intentions of being self sufficient in food. It is assumed that all our needs can be met from abroad should there be any shortfall in home production. I don't agree with that part myself but even as a commercial apple grower I wouldn't suggest trying to feed the world by planting apples. A big problem in this country is that everybody expects things to be cheap, food and fuel especially.

 

Plant Sycamore, they are aphid infested things but make magnificent trees in my opinion, native or not.

Personally as a land owner I wouldn't even consider creating woodland as it will almost certainly be turned into a place where the public have full right of access and it becomes a dog toilet the same as anywhere else these days. Sad but true.

[Jimbob87]

A really intresting point and something that I have mulled over latly. If diseases and log burning carry on what will the landscape be like in anothe thirty years. How much longer can we sustain the wood market as it is. Very intrested to hear some views of more knowledgeable people than me. Good post.

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Arbtalk mobile app

[hedgesparrow]

any plants got need to check if native grown or imported as a lot of plants including hedging is coming from abroad which is a shame.

what do you plant. as yet there is no cure for DED i did hear that there are diesese resistant plants. ash as other posts thats been knocked on head.

beech oak but both slow growing so 50 plus years before they would be a size. there is maple but do not see much grown in woods. wait for those with more knowlage on this

[woodyguy]

I enjoyed the previous discussion and although I've planted about 97% native in my wood, I also have a number of more future proof trees. Global warming is here big time and trees like Italian and Grey Alder and Pseudoacacia are likely to do well as it warms. Its hard to be sure what our climate will be like in 70 years time when the trees I planted this winter will be mature. It certainly won't be the same as now. People accept sweet chestnut and sycamore (and english elm) in the landscape, yet they were new once too. So a mix including hardier more drought resistant trees has to make sense to me.

[agg221]

It's an interesting question this one. I think setting and function have big roles to play. If you just want a decorative woodland, planting a wide mixture makes sense, however if you want it to be more productive it will tend towards monoculture, or perhaps an understorey coppice with standards. A productive woodland of hazel coppice with oak standards has a lot of promise, although of course it will take a long time before it works like this and you need a lot of vision to do this. The risk is that, being a monoculture, if some other disease strikes it will wipe it out. If the woodland is mixed though, it's likely to end up with one species out-competing the others anyway.

 

The majority of trees in the landscape though are not in woodlands - they are in hedgerows and by the roadside. There is a lot more potential for variation here. Walnut, field maple, lime, black poplar, white poplar, rowan, hawthorn, wild plum, wild pear and crab apple all make good standards in the right location and I'm sure there are many more.

 

When you add the secondary production crop though it gets even more interesting - I've planted selected varieties of cobnut, walnut and sweet chestnut to get the nut crop. Some of these were not bred in the UK. I'm not growing any of these as a commercial crop, but I see no reason not to benefit from anything they do produce. I will probably put in a wild service 'Rosie' if I can find one too. Of course as Peasgood mentions, there are also the trees grown specifically for fruit, which is my main interest.

 

The area I think could get interesting is when you start adding secondary production in to linear spaces. This isn't new at all of course - pollards in hedgerows are highly traditional although almost all now lapsed. There is however a lot of space available on roadside verges and field boundaries and I wonder at what point it would become viable to use this for firewood production, maybe by coppicing. It can't be that far away - we have willow grown commercially for cricket bats in a line down the edge of our field by the river and the manufacturers regard it as quite worthwhile to send the gang down once a year when they are passing to trim them up. A higher value crop I know, but quite labour intensive compared with simply coppicing over a hedgerow every 10yrs or so.

 

Alec

[corylus]

Population numbers don't enter into it in my opinion because as far as I can see we have no intentions of being self sufficient in food. It is assumed that all our needs can be met from abroad should there be any shortfall in home production. I don't agree with that part myself but even as a commercial apple grower I wouldn't suggest trying to feed the world by planting apples. A big problem in this country is that everybody expects things to be cheap, food and fuel especially.

 

Plant Sycamore, they are aphid infested things but make magnificent trees in my opinion, native or not.

Personally as a land owner I wouldn't even consider creating woodland as it will almost certainly be turned into a place where the public have full right of access and it becomes a dog toilet the same as anywhere else these days. Sad but true.

 

 

In the near future we may NEED to be (more) self sufficient in food....makes for a stronger nation not being solely reliant on others.

 

"Aphid infested things" = massive biomass for other invertebrates.

 

As for not creating a woodland because of the public/ access/ dog loo.....that worries me. Yes it's a pain but surely look at the bigger/ longer term picture?

[corylus]

There is also MASSIVE scope for productive planting outside woodlands. Imagine if all the shopping center/supermarket car parks used productive planting.

 

(Don't give me the argument " they wouldn't plant stuff which would produce stuff they sell" because productive land is a diminishing resource and we may need to use all available soil for food/fuel in the future)

 

I'm not being apocalyptic here.....just musing.

[Peasgood]

I think in the near future we most definitely will need to be more self sufficient in food production.

I think when it does happen we are going to be in a right mess because we have become a nation that wants to look at the countryside rather than view it as a food production industry. Hence the fact it is more important for people to have somewhere to take their dog for a crap than to have food being produced.

A big problem is the fact that it is going to take a disasterous event for us to realise this.

Meantime I am going to become a self sufficient hermit. (although there won't be a lot of change needed there)

 

Another one to think about if you can stretch the "native" thing is leylandii for wood production, be it timber or firewood. We have miles of "windbreaks" of these trees in our fields. They are damned good as windbreaks but even better at sunlight breaks unfortunately but they are seriously impressive as far as growth is concerned. These trees are 30-40 years old and are about 100' tall.

Were they not developed and clonally selected in this country?

[Gavint]

Evaluate all of your permanent plantings from the standpoint of multiple uses. Does the tree do anything for you besides look nice? If you are looking to have your property provide some of your family's nutrition needs, large trees could be a liability, because they could seriously reduce available space for vegetable gardening, where you can really grow a lot of food in a small space. But if you've got some room, fruit trees are an obvious go, they can be trained small enough so as not to shade out your veggie plot, and can be producing fruit in just a couple of years after planting in some cases. Nut trees can are also worth looking at, but require space and time to produce fully. Vines like kiwi and grape, bushes like ribes, and raspberries are other woodies to be considered.