SNH poison and ring Beech trees

[Lucan]

Whether you agree with the removal of the beech or not is one thing Ben. In your example the plan is to actively remove the beech and replant other species, presumably there will also be an ongoing management programme to ensure that woodland doesn't end up usual choked, worthless mess. I'm not sure about England but in Scotland the vast majority of our hardwood is worthless scrub, we certainly don't need quangos creating more!

 

The problem is there seems to be UKIP style attitude to woodland management at the moment, where all native trees should automatically be preferred to non-native whatever the situation. Just because it's not native doesn't mean it doesn't provide greater environmental and social benefits, beech is a good example of this.

[ben_inthewoods]

The problem is there seems to be UKIP style attitude to woodland management at the moment, where all native trees should automatically be preferred to non-native whatever the situation. Just because it's not native doesn't mean it doesn't provide greater environmental and social benefits, beech is a good example of this.

 

Beech is the worst example of this. It is heavily shade bearing leading to a monoculture of beech!

[Wood wasp]

I'll bet if that was a private estate at Loch Lomond that went through a wood poisoning mature hardwood and leaving them standing then all merry hell would break out.

 

I'm just back from cycle not far from Loch Lomond, didn't pass one hardwood plantation (or natural) managed for timber but mile upon mile of stunted worthless scrub. Now biodiversity is great but surely one of the quangos could set out to create a viable timber producing hardwood plantation, strive to create a real legacy like the oak forests of France and USA. Now what an achievement that would be.

 

But no, stunted native scrub is what we get served up. Hectare upon hectare of the stuff.

[Lucan]

Beech is the worst example of this. It is heavily shade bearing leading to a monoculture of beech!

 

It's also that the beech leaves are one of the slowest to degrade and they have allelopathic properties that prevent other species germinating (why you shouldn't put beech leaves in your compost bin).

 

But you can't base biodiversity just on what's obvious in front of you. Beech actually supports more insect life than several native hardwoods and is one of the top species of all trees in the UK for lichen varieties. This is what I was trying to get at that you have to look at the specific situation and environment and not just a black and white/native or non native approach.

[Logrod]

One of my biggest issues with the native woodland debate is that it seems to be a King Canute approach hold back the tide. We live in a time of accelerating environmental change both from climate change and increasing mobility of pathogens through global trade - these things aren't going to change however many people stick (economically and environmentally inefficient) solar panels on their roof. It makes sense therefore to broaden the range of trees in our woods and forests - what was successful 300 years ago isn't necessarily going to be successful in the next 100 years - too much "native woodland" could just see us with huge swathes of dead forest in 100 years time.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Oh no I don't believe I am going to jump to the defence of SNH, but here goes.

 

I look after a similar SSSI woodland where we are removing beech as they are shading out and killing from the bottom up light demanding native woodland (oak, hazel, ash) crucially the beech are also casting to much shade for specific lichen.

 

To regenerate the native woodland type we are removing 90% of the mature beech, winching out of a gorge using IRATA qualified arborists, we are also planting locally collected oak and hazel to get a new cohort of native woodland.

 

What would happen to the native woodland if no intervention? A shade bearing beech monoculture in time. We all experience poor impractical SNH bods once in a while, but I am not sure that this is such a big deal at loch lommond.

 

 

Fair points Ben and possibly it is part of a grand scheme of things. In that case the PR department need a rocket for failing to inform the land owner / Joe public and avoiding the negative PR which is probably irreversible.

 

The comment further up the thread about "imagine how SNH /FC would react if this was a 'private' endeavour" is also very valid - they'd be looking to prosecute.

[County 764]

Don't Get me started on SNH.

 

I've recently submitted a new planting proposal for 61ha MB/MC with about 25ha native planting on hill ground. Its on the edge of a SSSI but included within the SSSI boundary. SNH have stated that they will object to the proposals stating the site is in favourable condition (photos below) And no they haven't looked at the site since being made aware of our proposals.

They have made reference to aerial photos. They have clarified that no designated species have been recorded in our planting area.

The planting area accounts for 3% of the SSSI and full of bracken, rank heather and now non native regeneration as its no longer being grazed.

 

They have no idea of land management or economics revolving around it

[ben_inthewoods]

It's also that the beech leaves are one of the slowest to degrade and they have allelopathic properties that prevent other species germinating (why you shouldn't put beech leaves in your compost bin).

 

But you can't base biodiversity just on what's obvious in front of you. Beech actually supports more insect life than several native hardwoods and is one of the top species of all trees in the UK for lichen varieties. This is what I was trying to get at that you have to look at the specific situation and environment and not just a black and white/native or non native approach.

 

I think that you will find that some in SNH are far less wedded to native and non native than they used to be and are more interested in structure and adaptive resilience, particularly when it comes to woodland, ash and Chalara, dothistroma etc and climate change have forced the issue.

 

However, specific lichen 'assemblages' need light levels that beech dominated woodland cannot provide and I expect as in the site I am involved with (Lower Findhorn Gorge) the loch lommond site will perhaps have similar issues. Why not read the site condition info for the SSSI in question on SNHi? This will perhaps clarify the decision making process used in this case.

[ben_inthewoods]

Don't Get me started on SNH.

 

I've recently submitted a new planting proposal for 61ha MB/MC with about 25ha native planting on hill ground. Its on the edge of a SSSI but included within the SSSI boundary. SNH have stated that they will object to the proposals stating the site is in favourable condition (photos below) And no they haven't looked at the site since being made aware of our proposals.

They have made reference to aerial photos. They have clarified that no designated species have been recorded in our planting area.

The planting area accounts for 3% of the SSSI and full of bracken, rank heather and now non native regeneration as its no longer being grazed.

 

They have no idea of land management or economics revolving around it

 

I don't disagree that SNH with the site designation rules and some automotrons can make you year your hair out. I have had a similar experience with new woodland next door to an SPA/SSSI which took several years to get permission and cost £'000's in time to state the bleeding obvious. However some local SNH staff in my patch now are extremely pragmatic and see the bigger picture.

 

Best of luck with your woodland expansion plans.

[County 764]

I don't disagree that SNH with the site designation rules and some automotrons can make you year your hair out. I have had a similar experience with new woodland next door to an SPA/SSSI which took several years to get permission and cost £'000's in time to state the bleeding obvious. However some local SNH staff in my patch now are extremely pragmatic and see the bigger picture.

 

Best of luck with your woodland expansion plans.

 

Thanks

 

The area in question is where the SSSI follows a dyke and adjacent woodlands edge not what contributes to the significance of the designations on the ground. Its like talking to a brick wall via the forestry commission.

 

rant over, not to detract from the original post