We are at risk of having a problem with definitions here: ie is
unamanaged/managed good or bad and equating managed with timber
production and unmanaged with "laisse faire" -
Management should imply knowing what you have, eg semi natural habitats,
endangered species, trees of high cultural value, areas of access
particularly valued by the local population, high quality timber
potential etc etc, and then clearly defining how those values can be
protected/improved/zoned or whatever
Unmanaged implies the risk that valuable assets, however defined, may be
compromised through ingnorance
Managemenent may well imply knowing that the best course of action is to
do nothing
Conservation and enhancement of biodiversity are firmly embedded in the
UK forestry standard and UK Woodland Assurance, the documents used to
guide those moving towards certification and the benchmarks by which
woodland management is judged
Mark Hudson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Hughes" <pete@xxxxxxxxxxx.wanadoo.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: England's Trees woods and Forests consult.
I tend to think the issue of biodiversity depends on the scale at
which
you look at it. Is it necessary to 'manage' woodland (whatever that
may
mean, a subject for debate in itself) to ensure a variety of habitats
(ride edges, glades etc.)? Locally this may be important to
biodiversity
if there is a lack of 'wildspace', e.g., in an urban area. But on a
national/international scale is the loss of biodiversity caused by not
'managing' the woodland significant if there is a sufficient area of
other habitats, such as wetlands and other types of 'natural'
ecosystems? Should we not be concentrating on retaining larger areas
of
'natural' habitat rather than piecemeal pockets of wildspace with a
man-made diversity of habitats within? After all, no-one suggests
'managing' the Amazon rainforest - quite the opposite in fact, it's
more
about protecting it as it is.
To a certain extent, I also wonder to what extent 'biodiversity' is an
artificial concept. Left to it's own devices, nature seems to favour
less biodiversity: the climax type of vegetation for much of this
country at least is high forest and historically that is how much of
the
British Isles appeared for millenia. It's only because man has
intervened over the last few thousand years that we have large areas
of
non-forest habitats, and that few thousand years is almost entirely
insignificant as far as natural history goes. So is biodiversity
'unnatural'? If it is, should we be allowing nature to take it's
course
and thus reduce biodiversity? If we did, would this lead to woodlands
being classed as 'deteriorating'/'neglected' as the numbers of species
decreased? In a nutshell, are we humans perhaps a bit arrogant to
suggest we know best??
I realise this is probably all philosophical rather than a practical
approach in today's world (and I may have not made much sense!), but
I'd
be interested to learn what others think.
However, coming back on topic, I tend to agree with Gilbert that the
negative connotations of defining woodland as 'unmanaged'/'neglected'
is
unfair. An SSSI area of ANSW I used to manage was partly left
non-intervention and I would say (as did English Nature) there was
just
as much biodiversity in the non-intervention area - plenty of species
of
invertebrates, fungi, mosses, liverworts etc. on the dead timber - as
there was in the managed area. The species differed between the
managed/unmanaged areas, but both had plenty to offer. The only time I
felt it necessary to provide any sort of management input was to limit
access to prevent deterioration/damage from local kids on motorbikes.
Pete
Edmund Hopkins wrote:
Well, we're in very broad generalising here (I blame the
foreword)but I
think the one thing where a managed woodland is likely to score more
heavily is in structural diversity. Edge habitats tend to be richer
in
species numbers than interiors and there's nothing like a bit of
intervention to open up edges. Still, that undisturbed interior may
coontain fewer but rarer species, say ferns. As to brambles, I have
learned
to associate them with management rather than neglect, but that's
purely
anecdotal.
Quoting "Addison, Gilbert" <Gilbert.Addison@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>:
Thanks for that Julie. However, without wishing to labour the point
too
much, I do take issue with the negative projection of unmanaged
woodland
or worse "derelict" woodland. What does an managed woodland have
that
less managed woodland lacks - is it standing deadwood, fallen
deadwood:
I think not; might be decaying plastic or lack of brambles
(supports
more biodiversity than any other British species I believe),
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
A safer, cleaner, ambitious Nottingham - a city we're proud of.
Why not subscribe to Notice Nottingham, a weekly electronic
newsletter, and discover more reasons to be proud of Nottingham?
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/noticenottingham.htm
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content
and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal.
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal
views which are not the views of Nottingham City Council unless
specifically
stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your
system,
do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance
on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that Nottingham
City
Council monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication
will
signify your consent to this.
______________________________________________________________________
ARBORICULTURAL SURVEYOR REQUIRED: Go to www.tep.uk.com for more info
We are seeking a qualified and enthusiastic individual to undertake
tree
risk assessment and management duties in the north of England. Sites
are
diverse with many mature and veteran trees.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
ARBORICULTURAL SURVEYOR REQUIRED: Go to www.tep.uk.com for more info
We are seeking a qualified and enthusiastic individual to undertake
tree
risk assessment and management duties in the north of England. Sites
are
diverse with many mature and veteran trees.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
ARBORICULTURAL SURVEYOR REQUIRED: Go to www.tep.uk.com for more info
We are seeking a qualified and enthusiastic individual to undertake tree
risk assessment and management duties in the north of England. Sites are
diverse with many mature and veteran trees.
______________________________________________________________________
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
