Small Woodland Owners' Group

Wild woods

Topics that don't easily fit anywhere else!

Postby tracy » Sat May 23, 2009 5:55 am

The history of woodlands in the UK, I think a really interesting topic, which has been mentioned in the tree thinning thread.

I think it is in Oliver Rackhams book 'Woodlands' where he points out - (as Sawyer) mentions, there is no such thing as wild wood in the UK and hasn't been for thousands of years.

Take a look at the www.coppice.co.uk page - home page at the bottom. I put in 2 quotes from Evans and Rackham on wild woods and the history of woods.

btw if you don't own 'Woodlands' by Rackham, you should all buy it! It feels like a really good book to hold when you are reading it, (yes, book geek here) looks brilliant and is fascinating! Evans silviculture book is excellent too - FC are no longer printing it though.


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

Postby Stephen1 » Sat May 23, 2009 9:35 am

Definately a very interesting topic - but one where we could end up talking at cross-purposes with each other if we aren't careful. Would it be too boring of me if I suggested we set out some definitions i.e. exactly what we mean by terms like "wildwood", "natural woodland", "ancient woodland", "future natural woodland" etc. - if only as agreed on terms for this disscusion? I personally favour the definitions George Peterken uses - most of which are now pretty much accepted as standard within woodland ecology.


I'm happy to trot some out if that would be helpful - but I do realise I'm comming across as some newbie to the forum that thinks he know it all, and irritating folk on thread after thread!


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

Postby tracy » Sat May 23, 2009 2:34 pm

You are not annoying people Stephen1, you are getting this forum discussing enthusiastically!

Definitions would be good, go ahead and offer some and we can all chip in. I really must buy a Peterkin book, which one do I want?


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

Postby Stephen1 » Sat May 23, 2009 4:48 pm

Thanks for the generous interpretation Tracy!


I can't talk now as going out shortly - but the confusion often arises from the different way North American ecologists use terms like "Old Growth", "Primary Growth" etc. and the casual way terms like Ancient Woodland or natural growth etc. are often used.


The three most valuable texts, that don't suppose specialist ecological knowledge, in my oppinion are (in order);


George Peterken "Natural Woodland"

Oliver Rackham "Ancient Woodland" 2nd ed.

Georger Peterken "Woodland conservation and management"


They're all pretty dear - but they hold their value very well if ever you chose to sell them later. I'd consider them a more important tool to have than a chainsaw.


Sorry if the above is garbled I'm rushing!


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

Postby tracy » Sat May 23, 2009 4:49 pm

I think I will be shopping, thanks!


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

Postby RichardKing » Sat May 23, 2009 7:06 pm

"Wildwood" disussion seems to be spread across this & the "Thinning" thread

It is all very well agreeing on a definition of "Wildwood" in terms of (a lack of) human intervention.

But which model of the wildwood do people subscribe to in order to define what it actually looked like ?


RichardKing
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:30 pm

Postby Stephen1 » Sat May 23, 2009 8:14 pm

I guess you're refering to the "Vera hypothesis"? (The suggestion that the original native vegetation was not dense woodland but more like the savanah of Africa).


I think that this has now been pretty much debunked. Vera had a pattern of large herbivores keeping much of the landscape as grassland, with groves of trees developing here and there protected by thorney scrub -growing to maturity before degenerating back to grassland following the death of the big tress, with critically no young trees developing beneath them in their shade due to grazing by the big herbivores.


Mitchell using pollen analysis (preserved at various depths below the surface of the soil- corresponding to age) from Ireland (where there were no large herbivores during the period we are referring to ) found pollen ratios of grass species to the relevant tree species essentially the same as in mainland UK/Europe.


The implication being that the hypothesis whilst seductively elegant and with great appeal to common sense is actually probably incorrect, at least at the scale and to the extent that Vera suggested.


Most woodland ecologists now agree once more that the original view of something akin to high forest is probably what most of the original wildwood looked like.


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

Postby RichardKing » Sun May 24, 2009 11:40 am

I believe the analogy was more with The New forest.

What is now your suggested date of the last virgin "wildwood", with the absence of large herbivores, modern humans, indeed any humans ? Must predate several ice ages.


RichardKing
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:30 pm

Postby Stephen1 » Sun May 24, 2009 1:31 pm

No there was no intial analogy with the New Forest - it was very clearly a denisty of groves of trees like that of savanah. Vera used some empirical evidence for the way trees regenerate from the open grassey areas of the New Forest - within suckers of thorn bushes - thus protected from grazing animals- is that what you were thinking of?


No one doubts the mechanism Vera proposes (there wasn't really anything original about the mechanism)- just the scale at which it operated, and the effect on the level of closed canopy that is likely to have existed.


The great thing about Vera's hypothesis was that it stimulated disspassionate debate, with no agendas other than a scientific search for the "truth" about the structure of the original woodland cover. Vera himself hasn't clung to his hypothesis as originally envisioned, but as the evidence has come in (from studies by other people that his ideas stimulated) he has increasingly accepted that an increased level of tree cover was likely - albeit not a continuous canopy as typically believed.


Large herbivores were without question present in the "wildwood" whether you tend towards Vera's view of a more open canopy - or a traditional view of very large expanses of closed canopy. So I'm not sure how to approach your question - loaded or not!


Obviously from a previous coment you made on another topic I realise the angle you are comming from with this. I think you have misunderstood me. I have no agenda about restoring some sort of imagined, guessed at (albeit evidence based- but certainly an imperfect picture) of what the original "Wildwood" might have looked at. This is an impossibility and of questionable value anyway.


I strongly believe the benefits of, and the scale of, coppcing (and some other 'traditional' woodland management practices) are overstated in terms of benefits to biodiversity, ecological and cultural goals. - Although without doubt it is of great value at large number of sites. I realise that's a whole different topic though.


I admit that for reasons that aren't entirely evidence based, or rationally justifiable I have a desire to see more woods allowed to develop into what is currently described as "Future Natural".


But I have no desire to influence either how you manage your woods, or what you think is correct. That is your business. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone interested who holds a view, but I'm not determined to convince you my way is right or your way is wrong!


For what it's worth in answer to your question (although we still haven't checked we're defining Wildwood in the same way) most woodland ecologists think that pockets of Wildwood actually survived suprisingly late - certainly into historical times. I refer you to Oliver Rackhams writings about it.


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

Postby The Sawyer » Mon May 25, 2009 6:09 pm

Hi Stephen1 as we seam to have got off on the wrong foot (my fault) I am glad you have started this thread with a definition. It is a hard one to really define wildwood but you have given some good examples of the different arguments (scientific or otherwise) from memory there is an experiment going on in the Netherlands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oostvaardersplassen ) in which they have put Wild type cattle, Red Deer and Wild ponies into a 2000ha reserve and left them to get on with it. I believe the Remit was to set it up as if Large carnivorous (wolves or Lynx) would be introduced at a later date. Not sure what has happened but the rumor was that when they tried to enter the enclosure at one point on the the Cattle made a big mess of there landrover.


will look over some old college notes and add more.


regards kester


The Sawyer
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:03 pm

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron