Forum menu
What are we supposed to hit if they take the trees away?
I was promised a hover bike back in the 70s I want one now DAMMIT!
Scrub? - You're lucky! They planted a football stadium to encourage biodiversity on the downs where I live.
I always find the area under evergreen or pine trees to be drier than the area under other types of vegetation.
therefore as a cyclist Im all for pine trees 🙂
Theres one area near me in the chilterns that actually has pine trees it is surprisingly dry under them even in winter.
Move out of that area and back to the normal bog.
If you ask me pine tree should be liberally planted all over the chilterns.
Any conservation measures need to be carried out with sensitivity. A sudden and harsh clearence can be as environmentally 'bad' as the problem such a clearance seeks to address.
Ho9w much of the area is being reverted to heathland? Swinley's a similar situation - the main MTB area is planted/managed pine forest, with the MOD land to the S predominantly heathland. I'm all for a bit of variety so that works for me.
Oh and brooess, one feature of heatland is gorse. Plenty of ouchiness there, even if it's not quite as solid as a tree 😀
As others have hinted at, at what point in time was it heathland and how much of the area? Is that just the sandy Leith/Holmebury/Pitch range or does it stretch to the downs themselves.
Presumably at some point in time the whole area was forest before it was cleared. Does anyone know what the downs looked like in WW2? I'd have guessed a lot of trees would have been cleared when the pillboxes went in?
Much woodland may have been cleared in WW2 for agriculture.
Presumably at some point in time the whole area was forest before it was cleared
That's what we are trying to say - it wasn't necessarily forest in prehistoric times because of poor soils, fast drainage and herbivore activity.
I seem to remember our lowest ever forest cover in the UK was in WWI because we had to cut a lot of timber for the war effort. That's when the FC was created I believe, and it's been increasing since.
The Tower is a folly anyway, the land around it was almost certainly cleared when it was built to show it off.
I agree with Frankie - he knows about trees and conservation - it's also his job too!
A few Scott's Pines are fine imo, they go well with the other Victorian follies we have in the landscape....
🙂
Much woodland may have been cleared in WW2 for agriculture.
I don't if that's the case or not, but I do know that the South Downs was selected precisely because it was already cleared. And it is apparently the fertilizers used during WW2 on the South Downs for agricultural purposes which has left a lasting problem in returning it all back to grasslands. Well that at least is what I remember a South Downs ranger telling me.
And it is apparently the fertilizers used during WW2 on the South Downs for agricultural purposes which has left a lasting problem in returning it all back to grasslands.
Widespread use of inorganic fertiliser didnt start till post WW2, I expect a good proportion of the flat areas of chalk grassland were ploughed up for crops though. The Phosphate levels from these NPK fertilisers remain high for a long time and inhibit plant diversity Potasium doesnt effect plant diversity and N is lost pretty quickly, after that plant colonisation is very very very slow so needs to be supplemented with seeds sown. South Downs were cleared for agricultural grazing a long time before, certainly we a talking iron age clearing.
I agree with Frankie - he knows about trees and conservation - it's also his job too
God I hope not because his views sugges a massive misunderstandig of UK conservation management.
Widespread use of inorganic fertiliser didnt start till post WW2
Considering that part of a South Downs ranger job is to educate people about the Downs, that's pretty piss-poor performance on his part - I distinctly recall him saying that fertilisers were used on the Downs during WW2. I feel I ought to complain to someone.
before you shoot him was he talking about organic (ie shite) or inorganic?
Whilst I'm all for conservation and restoring habitat, I have a number of issues with what is going on in the Surrey Hills at the moment.
Firstly, there is pretty poor communication on it given that the stated objective of the Friends of Hurtwood is to help "maintain this beautiful area for the benefit of the public". The most I could find on the website re: tree felling referred to activities in 2010!!! As a paid-up Friend of the Hurtwood, I've emailed the ranger to ask what the current situation is but have yet to get a response.
Secondly, large parts of the Hurtwood currently resemble the set of Gladiator, without the benefit of the cash a film crew would pay to destroy it! It's unsightly and many of the offcuts of trees seem to be left to rot which will take some time.
Thirdly, the activities are trashing choice bits of singletrack and cutting up bridleways and leaving them strewn with bits of wood ripe for trashing wheels and rear mechs. This is clearly a myopic MTB view, but still - this is an MTB forum.
Fourthly, this is a well-used area by a broad range of people. Trees hide people, particularly in summer. With the trees gone, the numbers of people using it will become more obvious not only to humans, but also to the wildlife this action is designed to encourage.
before you shoot him was he talking about organic (ie shite) or inorganic?
He said chemical fertilisers.
anagallis_arvensis -
[God I hope not because his views sugges a massive misunderstandig of UK conservation management/quote]
You seem to be mistaking your 'fact' with my personal preferance!
[Try to make your point without acting so arrogant/quote]
This is good advice!!
It's the same as the obsession of keeping the south downs chalk grass land. I'm sure before 'we got our hands on it, it would have mainly been woodland!
please tell me you are not involved in any conservation management decisions
You can rest assured, as far as the south downs are concerned, there safe!
Are you saying that the south downs never were woodland???
No I'm saying it doesnt really matter what they were.
So back to the Surry Hills. In your opinion is deforestation the right thing to do? And if so to what extent?
Dont really know the surrey hills but getting rid of some forestry and trying to recreate heathland, if its done properly, wouldnt be bad i would think. Obviously amenity value should also be considered.
So how much of the south downs can i turn in to precious chalk woodland??? 😉
None i would reckon, no matter how hard you try. The species are just not available.
Yet the south downs have some of the oldest yew woods in the country!
There is a lot more to a forest than trees.
[i]I agree with Frankie - he knows about trees and conservation - it's also his job too! [/i]
So you've both 'interest' in the work been planned, as otherwise you'd not have a job?
Feels wrong to me, and having seen the (pointless) efforts in the Chilterns where its just turning to waste - and the obvious long-term cash implications, which may or may not be able to be continued...
There is a lot more to a forest than trees.
+1
I'd also comment that there's a lot more to sustaining a biodiverse heath than putting up some fences (fencing of common land being a whole thread in itself) and putting some cows on there - we've got a lot of heathland in my area, and the fire-load is horrific, [b]when[/b] it goes up, its going to be disastrous.
Sustaining a biodiverse heath or grassland isnt too bad. Recreating them from something else is ver very hard.
[There is a lot more to a forest than trees/quote]
There's the bug's & beasty's that live upon the very specific trees, shrubs, flowers, grasses, etc that are indigenous to this country.