UKTC Archive

RE: Natives vs future

Subject: RE: Natives vs future
From: Tim Moya
Date: Oct 22 2020 16:03:25
However, the last ice age lasted for about 100,000 years. Trees growing in 
the last interglacial (including a warm period which only lasted about 15,000 
years) would have been around in a rather different, but short lived, world. 
No reason not to introduce more exotic tree species. As Jim says, we have a 
very small number of natives. But there is also a lot of diversity within 
native species still to be explored.

Tim Moya

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> 
On Behalf Of Jim Quaife
Sent: 22 October 2020 16:52
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Natives vs future

Er - preceded the END OF the ice age.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Jim Quaife
Sent: 22 October 2020 16:48
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Spam> RE: Natives vs future

I will try and find the details, but an FC friend was in the New Forest for 
many years (27 I think) and they were investigating soils and discovered 
Liriodendron pollen at a depth that probably preceded the ice age.  We 
generally regard 10,000 years ago as the retreat of the ice which was not 
supposed to have reached the south coast, although the ghylls near 
Crowborough, East Sussex, are (apparently) typical of meltwater.
Our 33 natives is a pathetically small number, and the naturalisation of 
elms, horse chestnut, sycamore et al is well established, each with their 
adopted ecology.  (Sycamore has far more associated wildlife than beech).  At 
a meeting of the Oxford Forestry Group in 1991 I listened to the study of the 
alternating succession between ash and sycamore.
I wonder if the fixation about native species is quite as binary as some 
would have it. 
DED and ADD are a litmus test of bio-security and I for one advocate exotics, 
provided that one is mindful of proportionality and respect areas where 
native is actually the justified priority.
Right - time for more coffee!
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Jerry Ross
Sent: 22 October 2020 15:50
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Natives vs future

It's worth recalling that our natives have been around through several pretty 
major climatic vicissitudes: the Roman Warm Period,from 250BC to AD 400,when 
temperatures were between 1 & 2° warmer and there were vineyards in Norway; 
then there was the medieval warm period from 950 to 1250, not to mention the 
Holocene climatic optimum, a thousand years after the last ice age. And we 
shouldn't ignore the 'little ice age' 
between 1645 and 1715
Most of our native species weathered these changes, so let's not write them 
off now.




On 22/10/2020 12:34, Charlie Ashworth wrote:
Bryn,

Sorry, my interest was in specifics.

But re your interest, there is a need to plant a diverse range of species 
to meet climate/environmental changes, but if we stop planting natives in 
groups then we are not even giving them a chance to adapt.  I understand 
the desire to plant for successful timber production, but there should be a 
balance between the old and the new - as there would be in a natural, 
unplanted, woodland environment - as well as a balance between profit and 
benevolence.

Charlie


Charlotte Ashworth MArborA

www.tree-care.org.uk
charlie@xxxxxxxxxx.org.uk
Mobile:07812 XXX XXX
Office: 01270 XXX XXX

On 22 Oct 2020, at 09:59, Brynley Andrews <brynley.andrews@xxxxxx.com> 
wrote:

Charlie, Tahir, Jim
Thanks for the replies.

The current farmland covers 120ha and we are aiming for planting ~ 
15ha of woodland. Orchards and parkland are also happening. A further 
~ 400ha are in the pipeline.

The specifics about right species and management are not what 
interest me here, which is the battle between the old 'native species are 
best mantra'
and modern 'climate/carbon/futurism' models. My point being - surely 
it is time for climate/carbon/futurism, and therefore, those pushing 
natives as a knee jerk response are out of touch?

Being slightly provocative for the sake of debate.

Thanks

Bryn

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 09:31, Jim Quaife <jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> 
wrote:

Hi Brynley,
Sounds like a really absorbing project, but with no details about 
anything all one can say is that depending upon scale there is 
usually a compromise.  The ambition for a sawmill is very much long 
term if it is based on current planting!
The appetite for a sawmill suggests that there is already some 
production in view, but again a sawmill can be a Woodmizer (or something 
similar -
owned or contract hire) or a static installation.   If it is to be 
anything
other than casual/incidental the throughput needs to be substantial.
The use of exotics is to my mind essential as a diversity safeguard 
for bio-security.
The fascination with woodlands is that they can accommodate a wide 
range of interests and the role of the consultant is to explore them 
all and to come up with a balanced scheme.  Again, depending upon 
scale it doesn't necessarily have to be done in one hit.
Enjoy!
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Brynley Andrews
Sent: 22 October 2020 08:49
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Natives vs future

Dear all

I am involved in a large scale farm woodland planting scheme.

The FC favour high performance carbon/timber/eco species, and the 
ANOB/LA landscape planners favour traditional species to form 
traditional landscape features.

There is considerable overlap potential but the FC seem to be more 
inline with modern thinking. And arguably the LA/ANOB are part of 
the old failed model.

Also, The landowner intends to eventually run a sawmill on the Eatate.

I am proposing a highly diverse mix of 50/50 exotics & natives as 
suits the soil/climate/objectives - with special emphasis on 
targeting habitat for priority fauna species.

It is a fun project & I welcome your input.

Thanks

Brynley

--
Brynley Arboriculturist / urban forester



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural 
consultancy and Stockholm Tree Pits 
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural 
consultancy and Stockholm Tree Pits 
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk


--
Brynley M M Andrews MSc., C.Env., M.Arbor.A.
www.brynleyandrewsassociates.com
01935 XXXXXX
07970 XXXXXX



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
and Stockholm Tree Pits https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk







-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk