Small Woodland Owners' Group

Restoring a chestnut woodland

Trees and Plants!

Postby wood troll » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:09 pm

Hi All

I have just be asked to coppice and restore some chestnut woodland (about 4 acres) which has been badly maintained over many years. The history of the site ( I think) is that it was originally a chestnut woodland which was then cleared and replanted with pine, then in the 70's this was clear felled again and the site was sold and part was used to build a house. The woodland has then been left and it has regenerated into a mixture of oak, pine and some chestnut stools of various sizes (some are about 2metres across!). The site is all sand and has a very steep slope above the house. The sub layer is heather (calluna vulgaris) and broom.


This is the first time I have worked in a chestnut coppice and neither of us have experience of a sandy soil.

What should the spacing of the chestnut stools be?

On the big stools all the stems are massive, some stems are over 40cm, is it ok to coppice all the stems in one go?

How many oak standards should there be per acre?

Has anyone any suggestions for stabilizing the very steep sand bank, about 10metres high, at present has some broom planted on it?

What plants would you expect on the edges and sub layers?

thanks

wood troll


wood troll
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:00 pm

Postby tracy » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:23 am

Hi Woodtroll


Start by looking at coppice.co.uk

Yes, you can cut all the large stools at once. You will get some die off but not a lot.

I wouldn't bring back pure chestnut, it doesn't sustain lots of wildlife - mix it in with a few things.

Standards 12 -40 per acre I think.....

The close the stools, the taller and straighter your timber will be....


tracy
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:30 pm

Postby Stephen1 » Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:42 am

Whilst coppicing is without doubt an ideal way to favour many woodland species - the so called "gap phase" species that require relatively high levels of light on the forest floor - it is important to remember they are only one component of our woodland flora (and associated fauna). Many woodlands, particularly in the S.E. of England where coppicing was most widespread and continued longest, have artifically high numbers of these gap phase species, and following coppicing they respond dramatically with beautiful carpets of spring flowers.


Unfortunately, despite the arguments that a few retained standards help, these woodlands are typically very poor in the species that require mature growth.


Coppicing isn't always the most appropriate management choice. If you have individual stems of 40cm+ I think you might want consider if nudging this woodland in the direction of High Forest my not have more environmental benefits?


Deep sandy soils do not mean unstable trees - in fact quite the opposite. Well drained soils like these encourage deeper rooting in chestnut.


You could ring bark some of the stems on a stool. You have to remove a complete circle of bark at least 6" wide on Sweet chestnut (sweet chestnut is one of the fastest species at healing bark damage by callousing) . No extra risk of windblow of these stems for about 10+ years as chestnut is increddibly rot resistant, and the remaining live stems keep producing sugar which is sent down to keep the roots alive - so rot resistant stem held up by live roots = wind safe for at least 10 years.


By killing some stems you let more light to the remaining live stem which responds quickly with good growth. The advantage of the stable dead stems still being in place for a decade, is that they provide some gradually reducing wind shelter to the live stem - so it adapts to the change in its circumstances (i.e. by laying down varying amounts of tension/compression wood on the appropriate sides of its stem or butressing etc.)The shelter is gradually reducing as the live stems gradually overtop the dead stems growing out of the shelter of the others, and the twiggy bits of the dead stems are lost - so the wind exposure is slowly increased, at a speed the live stems can respond and adapt to.


Then after 10 years or so you could fell the ringbarked stems which will now be perfectly seasoned for fire wood- and have the advantage of being much lighter in weight.


This technique is only suitable for rot resistant species such as oak and sweet chestnut - definately not safe for birch, sycamore, beech etc.


(I've never done it myself with big oaks only chestnut - but by coincidence have just mailed someone who has done something similar with oak!)


P.S. In young woodland/coppice woodland natural cavities for nesting birds, invertebrates etc. are always in short supply. You can increase these with a cordless drill (ideally 24v) and one of these brilliant bits;


http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Index/Tools_Power_Index/Drill_Bits_Wood/index.html


With these you can drill a hole, and then plunge in through the same hole at different angles to make a much larger cavity behind the small initial hole. Obvioulsly angle the hole so it won't fill with water - although where it's safe some water filled holes are important for the larvae of some hoverflies... Again this is a technique for rot resistant species - ideal for sweet chestnut, western red cedar etc.- otherwise you risk wind snap. (I've been doing this for over 10 years in Chestnut and haven't had a single stem fail - and have anecdotal evidence that great tits fledge more young than from birdboxes, and they're more likely to be used by nuthatches than the specialist woodcrete boxes offered at such high expense!)


Stephen1
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 8:12 am

Postby Toby Allen » Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:14 pm

Very clever...

A good way to single stems, though does it improve the chances of shake?

You also lose the fencing material, that seems to be a problem with conservation and chestnut, it's not a great wildlife tree so is often singled to provide habitat.


Toby Allen
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:43 pm

Postby Stephen1 » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:16 am

No I don't think it would reduce the incidence of shake. Shake in sweet chestnut is not very well understood, but (particularly ring shake) it doesn't just come about through some aspect of poor seasoning, the problem is set up whilst the tree is growing.


There's a very good research paper on it by G.P. Buckley - on what to look for externally on a tree that would let you know that specific tree was likely to have a shake problem. The advantage of this, of course, is that if you were choosing between two trees, to give yourself one for timber and leave one for conservation benefits, you could skew the odds in your favour of ending up with timber without shake.


I seem to remember the method took into account eppicormic shoots and the timing or speed it grew its leaves in the spring relative to the other trees on the same site.


I'll try and dig the reference out for you...


Stephen1
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 8:12 am

Postby Stephen1 » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:24 am

Hi Toby


The paper is;


External and internal growth parameters as potential indicators of shake in sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.)

C. Mutabaruka, G.R. Woodgate and G.P. Buckley


in -Forestry 2005 78(2):pages175-186


You could e-mail - [email protected] for a pdf copy of the full paper (or use the interlibrary loans facility at your local library?), but the abstract is free to view here;


http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/2/175


I don't want to sound like a patronising git, but if you're unfamiliar with any of the terms used, just mail me and I'll try to explain. I don't doubt for a minute that you could understand it -I just mean there might be some jargon you're unfamiliar with...


Stephen1
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 8:12 am

Postby tracy » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:20 am

I have written to Peter to ask him for it...


tracy
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:30 pm

Postby tracy » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:50 am

Sorry to say - this article is copyright and I can't put it online. I can read it however and will do one day....


tracy
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:30 pm

Postby Darren » Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:22 pm

Does a high forest produce as much wood per acre per year as a coppice woodland?


Darren
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:26 pm

Postby Stephen1 » Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:34 pm

That's a hard question to answer - I think really the answer has to be it depends!


High forest managed Grand Fir growing on a good site might produce as much as 28 tonnes of new wood per hectare per year- and keep going at that rate for a few decades. Sweet chestnut coppice at very exceptionally best is unlikely to produce much more than 10 tonnes per hectare per year - and probably only manage that for a few years in the middle of the rotation.


The thing with coppice is that for a few years at the begining of a rotation you've got relatively little leaf area intercepting the sunlight - that's why there's so much sunlight getting through to the woodland floor, hence the wood anemonies, bluebells. primroses etc that flourish early in the rotation - and of course producing wood is all about producing sugar by intercepting sunlight with leaves. Then later in the rotation you've got lots of overcrowded stems, stressed in terms of their energy budgets (i.e.no stems getting optimal amounts of light to make the sugar they need), and thus growing less than ideally - hence from a pure "weight of wood production" point of view not brilliantly efficient.


But from a "useable in many ways" wood production system, coppice can produce potentially more valuable raw material per hectare than high forest.


By very careful management with selective and repeated thinning it's possible to construct very efficient high forest systems that are multilayered using a variety of tree species of different levels of shade tolerance- but it's debatable whether the level of input required to manage such systems in the long term is justifiable!


So in answer to your question - it depends! - on the species, the rotation etc. etc.!


Stephen1
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 8:12 am

Next

Return to Trees and Plants

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest