Avenue(ish) renewal

[Adam M]

Briefly,

I'm currently writing up a renewal plan for a Victorian avenue as part of the L6 Dip so am exploring 4 options. I have bent the boundaries a little for this as I'm not doing it on an avenue in a traditional sense but a collection of trees with much of the same characteristics/challenges:

 

I have a large, semi-urban section of Common planted up with some 400 oaks (Q. robur), all mature/overmature. Regimented plantings, mostly equal distance of 10m centres.The majority were planted as Trafalgar oaks so are roughly 200 years old. Original intention was for ship building but never harvested as wood changed to steel etc.

 

Problem: Single species, similar age class, likely little genetic diversity, likely crash in population over next 100 years, OPM just down the road.

 

Current benefits: Plenty of trees with identifiable veteran features, including 'up and coming'. Visually unique - no similar feature, particularly in an urban fringe setting.

 

I've covered total replacement, replacement of individual rows, replacement of groups and minimal intervention.

 

I am currently weighing up species choice for replacement planting and am in a quandary. The site is called "The Mildmay Oaks" and replacing with other species would fundamentally change the character of the area. However, through repeating planting the same species, this results in similar threats in the future.

 

Question is, would you be so bold as plant different species and confine the name of the site to the history books in the name of sustainable tree management or would you stick with the same to avoid rocking the boat?

 

[David Humphries]

How about reviewing the potential for replanting with oak species more adapted to a potential warmer climate in the future, perhaps with a more Southern European provenance.

 

 

 

.

[Adam M]

How about reviewing the potential for replanting with oak species more adapted to a potential warmer climate in the future, perhaps with a more Southern European provenance.

 

 

 

.

 

I've commented on widening the gene-pool and that had come into my mind as a consideration but for some reason hadn't made it to paper! Ta!

[10 Bears]

Adam,

 

I don't understand your comment about it (the tree images) not being an avenue in the traditional sense, as in fact that picture is of a *very* traditional avenue. An avenue is simply a lining out of trees along a preferred route. It doesn't have to include a road or highway per se if this is what you mean as a traditional avenue.

 

Victorian parklands are full of complex avenues as you show in your image above, and often were pointed towards a feature of some sort eg a folly, the local church, water feature etc. It was a common parkland design in the Victorian era to overcome the randomness of nature and to control it with the installation of geometric or linear shapes - hence avenues like your were common. Although a little earlier, you may also want to introduce the ideas of Capability Brown, as Brown's parkland landscapes were what the Victorians inherited and hence began to work with.

 

So, my approach to this problem would be to really work on the history of the site, delving into original layouts/designs/features if possible. Add in a bit of local history and try to use this information to guide my 21st century management. I agree with the idea of managing for a changing climate - but I would do this strongly from the perspective of maintaining the traditional scene and use.

 

Think of the avenue as a living museum in testimony to the generations of foresters that have managed the parkland, that will span the ages and although the avenue has one root in the past, and hopefully it will continue to branch into the future...

 

(did ya like that?)

[agg221]

From someone completely unqualified to comment

 

I would stay with oak. The site is more than its ecological value, it also has cultural significance and that cannot be maintained if other genera take over. It also has aesthetic significance so I would stay with large species which retain the original grid planting pattern.

 

I would certainly want to broaden both the age range and the gene pool, but that could be a mix of using a wider range of seed sources and adding different quercus species.

 

The approach you take with regard to replacement strategy may well have a significant bearing on replacement choices. If you have large, clear areas then you can establish different species compared with infilling small gaps, due to light levels. You may also be able to induce different growth habit, e.g. tall centre leader vs. low forking, which would have consequences for further management.

 

Personally, don't think I would look to accelerate the replacement process. Whilst there is a risk of population crash, unless there are clear indications to the contrary, these trees may not have yet reached the halfway point. 'Population crash' is also relative. Unless wiped out en masse by a pathogen, they would probably die off over at least a century. A 100yr old tree is a good size, so regular replacement should maintain continuity of appearance.

 

As above, please feel free to ignore the comment of the ignorant

 

Alec

[timbernut]

What Alec says makes great sense, though looking at the photo closely there are obviously several rows of well spaced oaks ( it was hinted at in the ops opening statement ).

With this in mind it looks like there is room for the introduction of some other species to create variety, but I would be inclined to keep the main(?) avenue purely of oak to maintain its historical connection. Alternatively does it have to be interfered with?

[Adam M]

Adam,

 

I don't understand your comment about it (the tree images) not being an avenue in the traditional sense, as in fact that picture is of a *very* traditional avenue. An avenue is simply a lining out of trees along a preferred route. It doesn't have to include a road or highway per se if this is what you mean as a traditional avenue.

 

Victorian parklands are full of complex avenues as you show in your image above, and often were pointed towards a feature of some sort eg a folly, the local church, water feature etc. It was a common parkland design in the Victorian era to overcome the randomness of nature and to control it with the installation of geometric or linear shapes - hence avenues like your were common. Although a little earlier, you may also want to introduce the ideas of Capability Brown, as Brown's parkland landscapes were what the Victorians inherited and hence began to work with.

 

So, my approach to this problem would be to really work on the history of the site, delving into original layouts/designs/features if possible. Add in a bit of local history and try to use this information to guide my 21st century management. I agree with the idea of managing for a changing climate - but I would do this strongly from the perspective of maintaining the traditional scene and use.

 

Think of the avenue as a living museum in testimony to the generations of foresters that have managed the parkland, that will span the ages and although the avenue has one root in the past, and hopefully it will continue to branch into the future...

 

(did ya like that?)

 

Hi, the pic doesn't quite tell the whole story, picture another few dozen parallel rows. No focal point, doesn't lead from a to b. It's an unharvested plantation on common land that is now public open space. I've done a few words on history of avenues, problems etc. Just trying to justify continuing it as monoculture or work out a way to mix it up a bit without affecting having to rename the site

[tree79]

I found this a difficult question to,

Complete replacement and species change is a option as long as your evaluation weighs up the pro's and cons.

 

You could just opt for a adhoc approach.

 

But it doesn't matter what you decide along as all 4 options are fully evaluated.