Replies to This Discussion

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by David Cox on February 19, 2012 at 19:37

As you rightly point out;

"the twisting of good & invaluable research to suit a desired 'angle' is of huge detriment to land industry"

This happens all the time - think last year and the baseless argument (mostly Ignoratio elenchi confusing the issue more) used against the Govt's forest sale plan (which was smaller in overall size than what the previous administration carried out).

This reminds me very much of an article I read in the economist (I think, it may have been the Times) a year or so ago about forest planting being mostly "foreign trees" and people opposing new woodland unless it contained Oak, Ash and Beech etc, yet opposing a new wood of poplar and Eucalyptus for biomass and Sitka Spruce in one case for a conventional commercial replanting. This was bad as people were equating non-native with "not good" when the opposite can be true, and more efficient at preserving overall bio-diversity and sustainablity.

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by andy@ Doughty Garden Maintenance on February 19, 2012 at 20:06

I get quite annoyed by this "carbon footprint" and "carbon neutral" talk, personally I think it's a load of crap,

Don't get me wrong it's not that I don't care about ecology and the planet but i'm sure a lot of this carbon talk is just used to fill newspapers when they're running out of tosh to put in them.

As I understand it one volcano eruption is capable of releasing a hell of a lot more carbon dioxide than the human race would ever do.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling that the earth has been going through for many thousands of years and to think that we are affecting it in any way is actually quite arrogant.

Just my opinion though, i'm sure others will disagree.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John on February 19, 2012 at 22:26

Hi David,

  Exactly how can non native trees be more efficient at preserving overall biodiversity and sustainability,

I don't quite follow your arguement. 

David Cox said:

As you rightly point out;

"the twisting of good & invaluable research to suit a desired 'angle' is of huge detriment to land industry"

This happens all the time - think last year and the baseless argument (mostly Ignoratio elenchi confusing the issue more) used against the Govt's forest sale plan (which was smaller in overall size than what the previous administration carried out).

This reminds me very much of an article I read in the economist (I think, it may have been the Times) a year or so ago about forest planting being mostly "foreign trees" and people opposing new woodland unless it contained Oak, Ash and Beech etc, yet opposing a new wood of poplar and Eucalyptus for biomass and Sitka Spruce in one case for a conventional commercial replanting. This was bad as people were equating non-native with "not good" when the opposite can be true, and more efficient at preserving overall bio-diversity and sustainablity.

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Pip Howard on February 19, 2012 at 23:09

I echo John's question, but I agree with David Cox heart and soul about the issues surrounding the forest sell off being twisted - it was the principle reason I delved deep into the campaign and helped the only group trying to actually get some truths into the arena: Save Our Woods, which unveiled the complexeties and diversity of issues surrounding the sell off. We need a diversity of new woodland / individual tree planting and we cannot turn our backs on the possibilities of non native planting, (particularly if we are to continue this immense demand for woody biomass we are seeing) and we cannot afford to alienate those who make forests pay - the private sector. But this needs to be done in tandem with supplying the public with forests to enjoy and therefore educate all to nature and possibly increase a desire for research eventually into more than just imminent threats but promote the use of wood as a sustainable resource and as the backbone to a sustainable society. But if you are saying that non natives are as important for biodiversity then I disagree, as important for sustainability yes, but I perhaps misread you.

Andy, I think you have hit the nail on the head of the problem, we are so focussed (or are driven to be so), on the carbon debate that we are ignoring the simple fact that whether it is natural or man made is inconsequential - this is not a time to continue a media led 'blame game' - climate change is happening and it is very rapid. As our society is based on engineering and infrastructure unfit for future purpose as well as virtually all our basic needs, we need to be actually putting things in motion - and as you say one catastrophic natural event will tip the balance too far. Carbon is not the be and end all, indeed in many respects it is the lesser of the evil 'greenhouse gases' and should be one of easiest to solve, (thus very worrying that no one can commit to this). But this continual feed of c##p from those who supply our news and our views has to stop. Thank goodness for open journals and web forums and other transparent tools given to us by the internet!

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by David Cox on February 20, 2012 at 11:01

John & pip, I'll give three examples below (2 to do with Biodiversity and 1 to do with balancing human needs with Biodiversity) - one is a real life example to do with a Family / farm woodland (circa 2acre) and another one which was a published example and I will try and dig out the article this week. the 3rd my take.

1: A 2 acre coupe of woodland exists on a 110 acre dairy farm, the woodland was planted in the 70's with Sitka spruce to provide poles for fencing and firewood - however it has been neglected since and not touched. It has virtually no value and as such is clear-felled and chipped for biomass - However a condition of the felling licence is it be replanted. Sitka sprice planted densely has very little wildlife value and supports a small volume of biomass, however it has a yeild class of 14 (Tons per Ha per year grown), which is attractive  for money but otherwise little change for wildlife from intensely grazed land. However as it is for burning Poplar hybrids (non-native too, an American parent x Mainland European parent) are suitable and have a similar yeild class -  They also support a massive number of native invertibrate species which in turn are eaten by birds. Volume wise, something like 4x -5x the amount.

Oak and ash was considered - however despite a strong preference for these, with Yeild class's of 4 for oak and 6 for ash, and about 40% more life supported, Poplar was chosen. Also worth mentioning, the Oak would not support much life for at least 40-50 years due to its slow maturation, the Poplars fast growth would mean the wait is between 4-5 years.

2: Larch trees cast a very light shade, and as they are decidious they allow light onto a forest floor throughout the spring and about 40-50% more light in summer due to their fine foliage. This means that a dense commercial forest can actually develop an understory of dense vegetation such as bramble say, which supports a large amount of native wildlife, despite the trees themselves not supporting much (cones good for some birds and squirels). Much native climax woodland has less ground fauna due to the natural dense shade cast - Such as beech woodland. (as sad show of this is that large woods are v good for shooting birds as they can support many more, eg pidgeon and partridge). Larch also reaches maturity in 40-60 years vs 150-200 for oak.

This means a large larch woodland can and does support much more wildlife by volume than many native woods - It also explains why Large is often used as a "nurse species" when Oak is planted.

3; Human need vs nature - Humans need forest resources and we also have a responsibility to preserve as much of the natural world as possible. Take a fictional 100ha forest (247acre). If the whole forest is say Sitka spruce under minimal management for comercial gain, it will have virtually no wildlife value and is little more than a sterile green desert. However if managed more intensely and say Eucalyptus was substituted for some of the sitka for biomass purposes the productivity could be increased by 30% in terms of volume and £value. Now there are two options - Have a 30% increase in profit and productivity, or reduce the commercial area to 77ha (130% / 100ha = 1.3p-ha. 77x1.3=100) and now have 23ha of "wild" or Bio-diverse area. Everyones a winner, humans get the same resource but need less land for it.

John www.acegardenservices.co.uk said:

Hi David,

  Exactly how can non native trees be more efficient at preserving overall biodiversity and sustainability,

I don't quite follow your arguement. 

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Pip Howard on February 20, 2012 at 20:44

Thanks for a great reply David and I completely understand your point - the key was in the 'overall' rather than site specific. This plays in with a lot of the wider (out of the media) debate re forestry issues and on the frankly warped public, (and many in the industry - particularly the NGOs involved), opinion that all forests are pretty much 'the same', again fuelled by bad media and written into policy and or 'mission statments' - whilst the diversity and complexities of UK landscape allow and have to allow for non multi purpose plantation if we are to achieve an overall balance in the usage of our forests. Multi functional forestry is difficult, nearly impossible to achieve in one 'plot'. 

I think one factor important to stress here is that what many deem to be ancient woodland and see it as it is now fail to realise that throughout much of it's history it was likely to be much more open canopy - even silvo pastoral and therefore of a much higher biodiversity than it is now.  

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by David Cox on February 20, 2012 at 22:26

Pip - The overall is everything when it comes to Land. Your correct on the public perception of forestry being warped, with many people totally ignorant of the issues involved, from conservation, timber production through to Shooting and Hunting and Agriculture and where all these issues collide, and throw in the species question and management plans... you quickly end up with charities being led by idealistic "do gooders" and people who "think" but dont know what would work out best in a given situation. A Tree in Kielder forest is very very different from a Tree in a neglected Copse, but most people value them all the same.

Many in the public think all woods are woods and their over-simplistic view leads to such rash statements as "logging our forests" when sell offs are mentioned (Given the FC fells more trees than any other organisation), and "our beautiful woods" when refering to sitka monoculture, yet in urban areas trees vanish and the skyline goes from canopies and roofs to roofs alone.

I note your article on save our woods - http://saveourwoods.co.uk/articles/opinion/one-size-does-not-fit-al... is very informative and sums up alot of the issue very very well.

I wish the public could be educated more about the types of woodland - Especially so now that Silviopasture and Silvio-arable (agroforestry) are coming to town in the UK. Around Yorkshire I know of several examples of both. A place near me I noticed just last week -

I know that in Tanzania (my Girlfriend used to live their... the weathers better apparently?) Legume Trees are widely used in Alley cropping, which from the air would look like a forest to many English people.

With rising gas prices(therefore fertilizer), I wonder how many Italian Alder trees may dot English farm land over the next 30 years?

• ▶ Reply

PRO MemberPermalink Reply by Pip Howard on February 22, 2012 at 17:44

Couldn't agree more david, I for one would love to see many more Italian Alders being used. 

On twitter there is a debate raging at the moment about this very subject, with some heavyweight foresters involved - and having discovered this blog by an eminent Swedish forestry professor -  http://www.nbforest.info/blog/what-should-we-do-our-forests there is surely the argument that we do not need to keep trying to find a single solution - it is discussion itself which is the answer. Thus proving the worth of the LJN and other sites allowing for free discourse and showing up the newspapers and other so called resources for what they are - useless!

This can only bring about an empowerment of the practitioner - ie what is a client to do? They can ask and get  a range of options for their potential woodland site which will suit their desires, aesthetic, financial or for leisure purposes. 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion