Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in plantation ... · Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in plantation forests Proceedings of the COFORD seminar , 24 October 2002,

Opportunities for biodiversityenhancement in plantation forests

Proceedings of the COFORD seminar, 24 October 2002, Cork

edited by Lauren MacLennan1

1 COFORD, Technology Transfer Co-ordinator, Agriculture Building, Belfield, Dublin 4. Email: [email protected]

COFORD, National Council for Forest Research and DevelopmentAgriculture BuildingBelfield, Dublin 4IrelandTel: + 353 1 7167700Fax: + 353 1 7161180© COFORD 2004

First published in 2004 by COFORD, National Council for Forest Research and Development, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing fromCOFORD.

The views and opinions expressed in this publication belong to the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of COFORD.

ISBN 1 902696 35 2

Title: Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in plantation forests. Editor: Lauren MacLennan

Citation: MacLennan, L. (editor) 2004. Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in plantation forests. Proceedings of the COFORDSeminar, 24 October 2002, Cork. COFORD, Dublin.

i

Foreword

Ireland’s forest cover has increased almost nine-fold over the past century, from 1% at the turn of the20th century to over 9% at present. Almost all of the increase is due to a state policy of undertakingafforestation and, more recently, through grant and premium payments to farmers. Plantation forestryhas been the norm in both cases.

In the past, the services required by society from plantations focused mainly on employmentgeneration and the supply of home-grown timber to the domestic market. Such expectations were morea reflection of Ireland’s level of economic development in the 1950s and 60s and shortages in woodsupply following the Second World War than current conditions of near full employment and globaltrading in wood products. In reality, society now places a far wider range of demands on forests, suchas carbon storage, recreation, conservation of native flora and fauna, and water protection.

The Forest Service has responded to this changed focus; its procedures and conditions for grant-aidnow reflect the desire to, inter alia, use plantation forests to protect and enhance biodiversity. However,many unknowns exist on how best to achieve this in Ireland. Having identified this knowledge gap,COFORD and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are co-funding a major research study onthe interactions between forests and biodiversity. This project, BIOFOREST, is being undertaken byUniversity College Cork, Trinity College Dublin and Coillte.

In addition to this work, it is important to benchmark the Irish approach with best practice overseas.To address and highlight these, COFORD organised the seminar Opportunities for biodiversityenhancement in plantation forests in Cork in October 2002. The proceedings, which are presented here,are an important insight into current thinking, both in Ireland and abroad. Not only did the eventprovide an opportunity for the BIOFOREST team to present preliminary findings to an internationalpeer group, but it also showcased examples of biodiversity enhancement in other European countriesto policy makers and practitioners in Ireland.

In conclusion we thank the speakers, now authors, who made the seminar more than worthwhileand, of course, the BIOFOREST team for their close co-operation in organising the seminar.

David Nevins Dr Eugene HendrickChairman Director

February 2004

ii

iii

Contents

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I

BIODIVERSITY OPPORTUNITIES IN PLANTATIONS MANAGED FOR WOOD SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Orla Fahy and Noel Foley

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BIODIVERSITY GUIDELINESIN CURRENT IRISH AFFORESTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Ian Wright

ENHANCING BIODIVERSITY IN COMMERCIAL FORESTRY – COILLTE’S APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Dr Aileen O’Sullivan

EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF LAND-USE, PARTICULARLYAFFORESTATION, ON BIODIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Thomas Bolger

BIODIVERSITY OF PLANTATION FORESTS IN IRELAND: BIOFOREST PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29J. O’Halloran, T. Gittings, G.F. Smith, M. Wilson, A. Oxbrough, S. O’Donoghue, L. French, P.S. Giller, S. Iremonger, J. Pithon, D.L. Kelly, F.J.G. Mitchell, T.C. Kelly, P. Dowding, A. O’Sullivan , P. Neville, A.-M. McKee, L. Coote

ENHANCING BIODIVERSITY IN UK PLANTATION FORESTS: FUTURE PERSPECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Jonathan Humphrey

KEY HABITAT DESIGNATION IN PLANTATION FORESTS:A SCANDINAVIAN TOOL FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .51Flemming Rune

BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT IN EUROPEAN FORESTS WITHIN THE BIOASSESS PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59Allan Watt

iv

1

Biodiversity opportunities in plantations managed for wood supply

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service of the Department ofCommunications, Marine and NaturalResources is the Irish forest authority. Itsresponsibilities include the national forestrystrategy, the Irish National Forest Standard,development of public and private forestry,administration of forestry grants and premiumsand control of tree felling. In 1996 the ForestService published Growing for the Future - AStrategic Plan for the Development of theForestry Sector in Ireland. This states that Irishforest policy is ‘to develop forestry to a scaleand in a manner, which maximises itscontribution to the national economic and socialwell being on a sustainable basis and in amanner which is compatible with the protectionof the environment’ (Department of Agriculture,Food and Forestry 1996).

At present, approximately 680,000 ha or9.8% of the total land area of Ireland is underforest (Forest Service pers. comm.). It isestimated that more than 90% of currentnational forest cover (9% of the land cover) isplantation forest. Plantation forests are definedas ‘forest stands established by planting and/orseeding in the process of afforestation orreforestation. They are either of introducedspecies or intensively managed stands ofindigenous species which meet all of thefollowing criteria: one or two species atplantation, even age class and regular spacing’(UN-ECE/FAO 2000).

The national afforestation target is 20,000 haper annum from 2001 to 2030. A major portionof afforestation to 2006 will be under theCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Afforestation Programme (Forest Service2000a) where the primary objective is woodsupply. The other main afforestation schemesare the Native Woodland Scheme (ForestService 2001a), the primary objective of whichis the development of native woodland and itsbiodiversity, and the NeighbourWood Scheme(Forest Service 2001b) which places mostemphasis on forests as local amenities.

THE HISTORY OF FORESTCOVER IN IRELAND

Deforestation has been a constant feature ofIreland’s history. By the start of the 20th centuryforest cover had reduced to just over 1% of theland area. Since that time forest cover hasincreased more than six fold, to reach thecurrent 680,000 ha or 9.8% of the land area.Most afforestation has occurred post 1950(Figure 1).

Initially, state planting was responsible forthe increase in forest cover in which land waspurchased and afforested. Most of these landswere transferred to Coillte (The Irish ForestryBoard) which was established under the 1988Forestry Act, which gives it a mandate tomanage state forests on a commercial basis.

Private afforestation was minimal until thelate 1980s when various schemes and CAPreform measures were introduced to encourageprivate afforestation. As a result, privateplanting increased from 5% of the total plantingin 1984 (Tree Council of Ireland 1999) to over81% in 2000 (Department of Marine andNatural Resources 2001) (Figure 2). Individualsand institutions have, and have had, many

Biodiversity opportunities in plantationsmanaged for wood supply

Orla Fahy2 and Noel Foley3

2 Ecologist, Forest Service, Michael Davitt House, Castlebar, Co Mayo. Email: [email protected] Forest Service, Oliver Plunkett Road, Letterkenny, Co Donegal Email: [email protected]

2

Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in plantation forests

reasons and objectives for establishingplantations. These include amenity andlandscape as well as planting for gamemanagement and establishment of nativewoodlands. However, by far the greater numberof plantations has been established to supplywood as a raw material for the processingsector. Wood is a renewable and a versatile rawmaterial and a revenue earner for the landowner.

IRISH FORESTRYAND BIODIVERSITY

Although this paper focuses on issues relatingto biodiversity in the design and management ofplantation forests where wood production is theprimary objective, there are other influences onforestry and biodiversity including:

! Ireland’s obligation to biodiversity havingratified the Convention on BiologicalDiversity in 1996;

! European Union legislation in the form ofthe Birds Directive (1979) and the HabitatsDirective (1992) have mandated thecreation of Special Protection Areas(SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation(SACs) respectively – known collectivelyas Natura 2000 sites. In addition to thesedesignations, Natural Heritage Areas(NHAs) give protection to sites of nationalimportance;

! Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan(Dúchas 2002) is government policy anddevotes considerable attention to forestry;

! Forest health measures, such asmonitoring of imports and of the forestestate, ensure that Ireland’s forests remainhealthy and free from damaging exoticpests and diseases;

! EU Directives on Forest ReproductiveMaterial govern the collection and

FIGURE 1: Forest cover byforest type – 1920 to 2001(OWL = other woodedland).

FIGURE 2: Public andprivate afforestation from1920 to 2000.

3


distribution of seeds and transplants ofapproved genetic stock;

! The Native Woodland Scheme promotesthe conservation and establishment ofnative woodlands;

! The procedures and standards that apply toafforestation (and other grant aidedschemes) as well as to felling licenses,ensure that the associated operations arecompatible with the protection of theenvironment;

! Research, such as the BIOFORESTresearch project co-funded by the EPA andCOFORD (COFORD 2001), aims toaddress the gaps in knowledge ofbiodiversity and forestry;

! The Forest Service has recently recruitedan ecologist to its permanent staff.

Other relevant issues include thebiodiversity component in a future inventory ofthe forest estate, future reporting on thebiodiversity elements of the criteria andindicators of the Irish National Forest Standardand of those of the Ministerial Conference forthe Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE).However, Sustainable Forest Management(SFM) is a predominant issue for all forestryactivity. Since the United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development (UNCED1992) in Rio de Janeiro, biodiversity issues andSFM have been visible on the internationalagenda. Ireland has signed the LisbonAgreement (1998) which commits it to SFM.The Lisbon Agreement sets out six criteria forSFM which have been adopted in the IrishNational Forest Standard (Forest Service2000b). Criterion 4 of the Standard is the‘maintenance, conservation and appropriateenhancement of biological diversity in forestecosystems’.

IRELAND’S PLANTATIONS

Plantations are not uniform but vary dependingon their age, size, stage of development, speciescomposition, place in the landscape, ownershipand the habitats (both woodland and non-woodland) present. In Ireland, most forestplantations are young by forestry standards withless than 80% of the forest land being underwoodland for more than 50 years. This is a shorttime when compared with natural forests andEuropean plantations. The State plantations thatwere established in the period from c.1950 to c.1990 were, for the most part, on the mostmarginal land for agriculture. Land holdings onthese land types tend to be large and so landacquisitions for afforestation were in largeblocks on hilltops, the upper slopes ofmountains and on blanket peats. Singleacquisitions of 200 hectares and more were notunusual in those years. In many cases theseacquisitions joined and formed large forestblocks. Examples include the large forest blocksin the Slieve Aughties, around Lough Derg inCo Donegal, and in counties Wicklow, Cork,Mayo and Galway as well as in the SlieveBlooms. Many of these large plantations arenow being clearfelled and the felling coupes aremuch smaller than the original plantations,resulting in more uneven aged and greaterfragmentation within large blocks. Plantationsestablished in the last 10 years are much smallerin area than before (their average size isapproximately 10 hectares) and are widelyscattered. This change has been dictated by theincrease in private afforestation, a highergrowth potential being necessary to qualify forgrant aid, the move away from the moremarginal lands and environmental issues.

In the past, when afforestation was on themost marginal lands for agriculture, Sitkaspruce and lodgepole pine accounted for up to80% of species composition. There is a greaterdiversity of species planted today due to theavailability of more fertile lands forafforestation and to changes in the conditionsfor grant aid and premium payments4.

4 Current afforestation grant conditions require that each project contains no more than 80% of non-diverse conifer species (Sitkaspruce/lodgepole pine). As a result, non-diverse species are planted in mixture with diverse conifers such as larch or with broadleaves.There is also a requirement that 10% broadleaves are planted in these sites (site permitting). Species composition of afforestation in 2001was 82% conifers and 18% broadleaf species with a target of 30% broadleaves by 2006.

4


The life cycle of a typical plantation startswith establishment. Trees are small and the areainvariably has more herbaceous than woodyvegetation. Usually the vegetation is a reflectionof the habitat prior to planting. In the yearsfollowing canopy closure less light (in the caseof broadleaf species) and in the case of mostconifers very little light penetrates the canopy,consequently the higher plants are often nonextant apart from some specialists. Thinningcreates gaps, usually temporary, in the canopyand is usually followed by a recovery in groundvegetation. As the trees grow taller, near the endof the rotation, more light penetrates and theground and shrub layers may develop. Theplantation is eventually felled and the cyclerecommences but the vegetation afterreforestation may not reflect that of the originalhabitat. The plantation increases in height andin volume as it grows and its biodiversitychanges with these stages. It is usual to find allstages of plantation development in forestedlandscapes and to find that this matrix ‘moves’across the landscape over time.

FORESTRY GUIDELINES

In general, the larger plantations tend to beolder, monocultures on more exposed andmarginal lands but as pointed out these areas arechanging through clearfelling and subsequentreforestation. Plantations also vary in theadditional woodland and non-woodland habitatspresent, such as scrub, hedgerows, bare ground,water, deadwood and buildings. The ForestService has published several guidelines toensure that forestry is carried out to the bestsilvicultural and environmental standards.These include Forest Biodiversity Guidelines,Forestry and Water Guidelines, Forestry andArchaeology Guidelines, Forestry and theLandscape Guidelines, Forest Harvesting andthe Environment Guidelines, Forest ProtectionGuidelines, Irish National Forest Standards andthe Code of Best Practice – Ireland (ForestService 2000b – i). These guidelines and theCode describe a range of measures that aremandatory conditions to qualify for grant-aidedschemes and for the issuing of felling licenses.

FOREST BIODIVERSITYGUIDELINES

The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines recognisethat afforestation and reforestation provideunique opportunities to design and plan aplantation so that the best existing habitats areconserved. The Guidelines state that localbiodiversity factors (habitats, flora or fauna)should be identified and incorporated in the sitedevelopment plan. The influence of theselection of tree species, age and structuraldiversity on the habitat value and biodiversityof a forest is also recognised. The guidelinesrecommend favouring broadleaf species, the useof native species, the retention of scrub andhedgerows and planting of a range of species.Old trees and deadwood are important featuresin plantations and provisions should be made toensure, if possible, that they are left on site.

While good forest practice and adherence tothe Guidelines must be practised, approximately15% of the forest area must also be treatedspecifically for biodiversity. These areas aretermed Areas for Biodiversity Enhancement(ABEs) and comprise open spaces and retainedhabitats. The ABEs are aimed at encouragingthe development of diverse habitats, native floraand fauna and biodiversity. Areas forBiodiversity Enhancement are composed of 5 –10% open space and 5 – 10% retained habitats,giving a total area of 15%.

On sites less than 10 hectares, the open spacecan be designed in conjunction withneighbouring land-use and the percentagerequired may be reduced. Open space caninclude ridelines, buffer zones around aquaticzones, exclusion zones around archaeologicalfeatures and areas left unplanted for landscapepurposes. They should be designed to maximisethe edge effect between the forest and the openarea and management should encourage agradual transition from open ground to scrub toforest.

Retained habitats includes both woodlandand non-woodland elements and managementshould aim to conserve and enhance thesethroughout the current rotation and into

5


subsequent rotations. These areas should beclearly designated on relevant maps and on theground during planting, thinning and harvesting(sensitive times).

The level, be it project level or a widerlandscape or forest management unit (FMU)level, at which the ABE requirement appliesvaries with circumstances. It applies at theindividual project level in the case ofafforestation but in the cases of, for example,harvesting and reforestation it can apply at theFMU level provided the ABE element isidentified at that level.

REFERENCES

COFORD. 2001. COFORD Annual Report 2001.COFORD, Dublin 2.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. 1996.Growing for the Future. A Strategy Plan for theDevelopment of the Forestry Sector in Ireland.Stationary Office, Dublin.

Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.2001. Annual Report 2000. Department of theMarine and Natural Resources, Dublin 1.

Dúchas. 2002. Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan.Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht andthe Islands, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000a. Afforestation Grant andPremium Schemes. Department of the Marineand Natural Resources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000b. Irish National ForestStandard. Department of the Marine andNatural Resources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000c. Forest BiodiversityGuidelines. Department of the Marine andNatural Resources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000d. Forest Harvesting and theEnvironment Guidelines. Department of theMarine and Natural Resources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000e. Forestry and ArchaeologyGuidelines. Department of the Marine andNatural Resources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000f. Forestry and the LandscapeGuidelines. Department of the Marine andNatural Resources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000g. Forestry and Water QualityGuidelines. Department of the Marine andNatural Resources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000h. Code of Best Forest Practice– Ireland. Forest Service, Department of theMarine and Natural Resources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000i. Forest Protection Guidelines.Department of the Marine and NaturalResources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2001a. Native Woodland Scheme.Department of the Marine and NaturalResources, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2001b. NeighbourWood Scheme.Department of the Marine and NaturalResources, Dublin.

Tree Council of Ireland. 1999. Project Forest. AnEducational Initiative. Tree Council of Ireland,Dublin.

UN-ECE/FAO. 2000. Geneva Timber and ForestStudy Papers, No. 17. Main Report. ForestResources of Europe, CIS, North America,Australia, Japan and New Zealand. UN-ECE/FAO Timber Section, Geneva.

6


7

Implementation of the biodiversity guidelines in current Irish afforestation

I would like to thank COFORD for giving methe opportunity to present this paper. I am not aforester and have no scientific training - Ihappily admit that. What I hope I have got tooffer is a good measure of common sense andmy observations from creating wildlife habitatsover the last 15 years.

I am one of a group who edit and produce theweekly Forest Network Newsletter - anewsletter that I know is eagerly awaited everyWednesday morning by many involved withforestry in Ireland, and I hope I am speaking forthe majority of the NGOs today. The Friends ofthe Irish Environment asked me to make thispresentation. However, I should stress that theobservations I make are my own.

I have been asked to talk about theimplementation of the biodiversity guidelines. Ithink first we have to look at why thebiodiversity guidelines exist and why abidingby them are so important in the Irish context.

As the recent conference on sustainableforestry in Ennis illustrated so clearly, Ireland istotally out of line with international forestpractices. Other European countries haveaccepted the disastrous environmental andeconomic consequences of plantations of non-native trees designed for clearfell. At Ennis, thePolish delegation apologised for the fact thatbecause of earlier mistaken policies they stillhave to clearfell areas of up to 4.5 ha, whileIreland is still advocating clearfell coupes of 25ha.

I know this is not the forum to discuss thesepolicies but because the Forest Service isobsessed with planting plantations of trees toachieve its strategic plan, the areas retained andmanaged for biodiversity have far more

importance and significance than anywhere elsein Europe.

The Forest Service Forest BiodiversityGuidelines state that good forest practicecoupled with adherence to the guidelines willconserve and enhance the biodiversity valuethrough the whole forest. Initially the ForestService stated that, as the guidelines had beenexplained to the Forest Service inspectors, theywere confident the guidelines were beingadhered to. However, Hugh Scanlon, writing inthe Farmers Journal, made it very clear to whatextent they had been ignored when he statedthat: ‘the guidelines published over a year agowill be strictly implemented for the first time inthe current planting season’.

Following the introduction of the guidelinesthere seemed to be a broad consensus amongmost contractors about their spirit and meaning,but they were not incorporated into practice forfear that most Forest Service Inspectors wouldnot approve such plans. The confusion over theinterpretation of these plans was obvious in thatevery representation we made to the ForestService returned different answers. In the end,the Chief Auditor admitted that the mappingprotocols used by the Department meant that‘some single or some linear features are toosmall to be relevant on a 6 inch map’ and thattheir maps ‘do not facilitate showingbiodiversity plot data’. (So too for landscaping.)How do you record rock outcrops, ponds,marshes, bogs, scrub, watercourses, or evenpockets of existing broadleaves on a 6 inchmap? If these features cannot be mapped, thenhow can they be monitored? Since theconference, new mapping procedures andlegends for biodiversity were introduced. I willtalk later on about whether these are adequate.

Implementation of the biodiversity guidelinesin current Irish afforestation

Ian Wright5

5 Friends of the Irish Environment, Kilnaclasha, Skibbereen, Co Cork. Email: [email protected]

8


During the information day on the ForestryEnvironmental Guidelines the ChiefEnvironmental Officer of the Forest Serviceillustrated how they would impact on atheoretical 100-acre diverse conifer site. Fifteenpercent of the site must be identified forbiodiversity, 10% for broadleaves, and 20% ofthe remaining 75% to be planted with diverseconifers.

In response to the dismay of the IrishFarmers’ Associations delegate who asked : ‘nocommercial return from 25% of the site?’ theChief Forestry Inspector, insisted that it wasn'tas bad as it looks, because it has always beenassumed that roads, turning bays, ridgelines andfirebreaks have accounted for 15% of the site,and to remember that it is only sites over 10hectares that have to conform with the 15%ruling, and with the average site at 8 ha thisshouldn't be a major concern.

The 1995 Jakko Poyyry report on which thestrategic plan is based recommended that 25%of every site should remain unplanted. Dr SusanIremonger, who prepared the ForestBiodiversity Guidelines, writes: ‘The point ofhaving Nature Conservation Areas is to providean area where the trees are allowed to grow oldand a forest ecosystem develop, like that of anatural forest’. She recommended keeping 5%to 10% of each forest as open spaces for thefeeding of birds and bats, and for shrub and herbspecies that are intolerant to dense shade but canflourish in the open spaces within a forest. Sheused the term ‘Nature Areas’. The fact that thiswas changed to ‘Retained Habitat and OpenSpace’ in the guidelines speaks volumes. Shegoes on to say ‘Nature Areas are parts of theforest that are not subjected to the same forestryoperations as the rest of the forest area … theyshould not be logged or subject to other forestryoperations and so cannot form part of anycommercial broadleaf component of aplantation. The management of these areas iscritical to their success’.

Surely the open spaces of Iremonger’sNature Areas cannot include ridgelines, forestroads, turning bays, landing bays and theirassociated margins - let alone firebreaks, which

are scraped clear of all living vegetation everytwo years. To Coillte’s credit, they say theydon't include roads etc. in the open spaces.Coillte initially stated they were not bound bythese guidelines, and intended to ‘define’ 15%of an FMU (Forest Management Unit) asRetained Habitat, arguing it would beuneconomic to plan for 15% biodiversity ineach site. The Forest Service has confirmed tous and Coillte that Coillte do in fact have toabide by the guidelines.

These days Coillte state that they must beinterpreting the biodiversity guidelinescorrectly as the Forest Service is passing theirFarm Partnership sites.

Many private contractors planting forfarmers have told me they feel they are at adisadvantage as they have to put in 15% ABEwhile others are allowed to plant ‘every damninch!’’ I have been shown sites where this doesseem to be the case. However, without the mapsand legends from the application it isimpossible to work out whether this non-compliance with the guidelines is beingapproved by the Forest Service or the site mapsare being ignored when planting. In the absenceof transparency, we have issued a Freedom ofInformation (FOI) request for the maps whichto date have not been made available by theForest Service. People within the Forest servicehave made it very clear to me that they do notfeel NGOs have any right to check on thesesites.

An Taisce (Ireland’s oldest and largestenvironmental organisation) has recently beengiven a monitoring role under the ForestService new consent procedures in relation tosome afforestation applications. This is AnTaisce's assessment of the consent system todate: the new legislation has a provision forconsultation with the general public and alsowith prescribed bodies. Under this newlegislation, introduced last December, AnTaisce has approximately 10% of the newforestry applications referred to it. Although AnTaisce's specific brief is for sites with amenityand archaeology considerations, it does notlimit its comments to these two areas. They

9


have commented on acid-sensitive areas, waterquality, designated nature conservation areas,cumulative impacts of forestry plantations, aswell as the compliance of the application withthe forestry guidelines themselves.

Initially, applications received from theForest Service generally omitted page 3 ofForm I, which would have allowed them todetermine fairly quickly the key points to beexamined in relation to individual applications.This page detailed silvicultural andenvironmental considerations and answers toquestions on water quality, nature conservationdesignations, landscape considerations andarchaeology. It was only following a face-to-face meeting with representatives from theForest Service in July that they agreed to sendthis page.

The Forest Service were upset that An Taisceintended to take its monitoring role seriously,that it expected responses to its suggestions anddetails of the decisions the Forest Service made.The Forest Service stated they hoped they couldhave an arrangement as they have with Dúchasand the Water Authorities.

Very few of the applications received beforeJuly had areas of ABE marked. Of the 48applications received in the last three months,only ten had the map and legend for ABE andmost of those had no more than a tick - nobreakdown of open spaces, no description tohelp identifying ABEs on the map. A six inchmap gives little opportunity to identify smallfeatures so the legend is essential.

An Taisce is worried that so manyapplications are coming in without ABEsmarked. The Forest Service comments give noindication that it is insisting on these beforepassing the applications. With no transparencyit is impossible to monitor these.

The guidelines also recommend occasionalcutting on retained areas of unimprovedgrassland, to encourage wildflowerdevelopment. I would love to be proved wrongbut I have yet to see an area of unimprovedgrassland left, let alone managed for wildlife.

They also recommend gap planting andlayering to rejuvenate declining hedgerows.Again, I would love to be proved wrong butnone of the contractors I have spoken to haveever planted hedges or for that matter plantedany of the woodland trees and shrubs likewayfaring tree, spindle, guelder rose dogwoodsor even whitethorn or blackthorn.

To me one of the most important elementsfor biodiversity has to be water. Unfortunatelythere seems to be an obsession with draining allthe water off sites. The guidelines recommendcreating small ponds and areas over 60 hashould be served by reservoirs. In the thousandsof acres of plantations around Rock Chappell Ihave yet to discover a reservoir or pond. Theguidelines are there, I believe the will is therefrom most of the contractors, and I know thereare many digger drivers who would love thechance to create ponds and lakes. The costswould be minimal. All that is lacking is the willof the Forest Service to both encourage andenforce compliance with the guidelines.

At a meeting I had with An Taisce and theForest Service in July this year, a Forest Serviceinspector stated that ‘on sites less than 10 hayou retain what biodiversity there is but you donot have to enhance any of the area forbiodiversity. This is adequate for such smallareas’. I stated that: ‘On a green field site withno existing hedges, a percentage must be setaside for biodiversity’. He replied: ‘No, thefarmer is already losing 10% for broadleaves. Iwould not ask him to lose more of the site forbiodiversity’.

I asked him to confirm his interpretation ofthe biodiversity guidelines in writing. By astrange coincidence, I received his reply the daybefore I left to talk to the EC commissioners lastweek. (Good to know the jungle drums are stillworking!) He stated: ‘In sites less than 10 ha inarea, the open space element should be designedin conjunction with neighbouring land-use.Such small sites surrounded by open ground(non-forested land) consisting of grazing ortillage fields do not require open space forbiodiversity purposes in addition to that which

10


is normally provided for watercourses,roadways or rides.’

He is suggesting that the green fieldsurrounding a forest negates the need forallowing areas for biodiversity within theplantation. Let us look at this green field. Itmore than likely has three cuts of silage taken ofit each year with the circus of heavy machinerythat modern harvesting requires, it will have atleast three applications of fertiliser and morethan likely at least one application ofweedkiller, and just to make sure the field is asnature intended, the cows will have been wormdrenched just before they are put to pasturewhich will wipe out the few remainingearthworms in the soil. This is the area theForest Service are saying allows us to ignore thebiodiversity guidelines and plant every squareinch of a site.

At the conference in Ennis, a representativeof Irish Timber Growers’Association stated thata recent study has proved that a Sitka spruceplantation has more biodiversity than the greenfield I have just described. I am sure he is right.A Sitka spruce desert supports more than agreen desert, but surely the question that shouldbe being asked and the comparisons that shouldbe made should be between the richness andvariety of biodiversity and habitat that are beinglost forever and plantation forestry. I think it issafe to assume that by far the majority ofplanting is on the species rich marginal lands -our remaining reserve of biodiversity.

I would like to talk briefly about the NativeWoodland Scheme. Although the NativeWoodland Scheme is not immediately tied upwith the biodiversity guidelines, it is aboutpreserving and enhancing our remainingbiodiversity. One of its aims is the phased long-term conversion of mixed and conifer forests tonative woodland status. It states that allmanagement inputs to the site must be kept to aminimum, avoiding unnecessary operations andblanket prescriptions, sensitively implementedto minimise disruption and disturbance.

Bearing this in mind I would like to talkbriefly about Shippool Wood, just down the

road from here at Innishannon on the banks ofthe Bandon River. It is an ancient woodland thatwas clearfelled in the 40s and replanted withNorway spruce and Scots pine in the early 50s,adjoining NHAs and a proposed SAC. Coilltehad originally planned to clearfell this site,leaving the broadleaves, and replanting withSitka spruce. Following public representationsthey have now stated they intend to clearfell(leaving the broadleaves) and apply for theNative Woodland Scheme. The Coillte companysecretary said it could take many months if notyears to be passed for this grant, and that Coilltecurrently had hundreds of hectares ofclearfelled wood sites awaiting this grant. Thissuggests this not an isolated case. Once again itseems that, at the expense of biodiversity, theguidelines are being manipulated to allow apredominantly coniferous site to be clearfelledand then apply for the Native WoodlandScheme.

The fact that this could have a seriousnegative impact on the biodiversity of ancientwoodland sites is borne out by a recent researchled by Oxford University Forestry Institute.They found that if conifers (on ancientwoodland sites) are felled and replaced withmore conifers, then the wildlife dependent onancient woodlands will not survive. They go onto say ‘if we shift our understanding ofrestoration to mean creating conditions that willconserve and enhance ancient-woodlandcommunities, it becomes clear that continuous-cover forestry is generally better. Restructuringthe wood by degrees avoids sudden, dramaticchange, and allows the sensitive woodlandspecies to survive and expand under theprotective embrace of the tree canopy’. Which,of course, is what the Native Woodland Schemeguidelines advocate.

To conclude: enforce and abide by ForestService guidelines. I would also like to appealto the Forest Service to simplify the guidelines,get rid of the loopholes so that all sites have tohave 15% Area of Biodiversity. Thebiodiversity guidelines have made a difference.Riparian zones are for the most part beingrespected. Scrub is being retained. All

11


guidelines are bound to have weaknesses andpotential loopholes but if the guidelines aretaken on board and implemented with the visionthat Dr Susan Iremonger had when draftingthem, if the Forest Service’s ChiefEnvironmental Officer’s interpretation of themcould be seen to be applied through the wholeprocess from mapping and legends to planting,if a transparency were introduced into thesystem that would allow monitoring of theseguidelines without having to resort to FOI forevery scrap of information, the country as awhole would benefit from the expertise of thescientists gathered here today.

12


13

Enhancing biodiversity in commercial forestry - Coillte’s approach

BACKGROUND

In adopting Sustainable Forest Management(SFM) in 1998, Coillte recognised the need tostrengthen the environmental and social aspectsof the management of its forests. Natureconservation was seen as an important areawhere the company could contribute toprotecting and enhancing environmental qualityin the countryside. Work in this area had beenongoing prior to 1998, but at a low level. SFM,and its verification through certification,required the company to put in place tangiblepolicies and to develop systematic natureconservation practice on a more widespreadscale, as appropriate, across its estate.

The framework for Coillte’s biodiversityprogramme was provided by the requirementsfor FSC Certification. Certification is aninternationally recognised process wherebyforestry companies and forest landowners canhave their forest management practice auditedto a standard, and certified for theimplementation of SFM. There are many forestcertification schemes in existence, but Coilltehas opted for that of the Forest StewardshipCouncil (FSC) (Forest Stewardship Council2003). An example of an FSC-approvedframework for SFM, including the protectionand enhancement of biodiversity, is the UKWoodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS 2000).An equivalent Irish framework is in seconddraft stage, but has not yet achieved FSCendorsement (Mannion 1999).

COILLTE APPROACH TONATURE CONSERVATION

Broadly, the approach Coillte is taking in itsnature conservation programme comprises twoelements:

! Identification and appropriatemanagement of biodiversity areas. Theseare areas within the Coillte estate thatsupport a habitat or species of particularnature conservation value. In these areas,enhancement of biodiversity (or natureconservation) is the primary managementobjective. The appropriate treatment ofthese areas may require management thatis considered unorthodox in terms ofstandard forestry practice. Depending onthe site, timber production may alsofeature as a management objective inbiodiversity areas.

! Adoption of wider forest measures. Theseare to be implemented, through goodforestry practice, at the level of thestandard forest operations site. These aresites that hold no outstanding natureconservation interest, and where timberproduction is the main objective ofmanagement. On such sites, good forestrypractice is aimed at: a) ensuring theprotection of relatively small features ofconservation value; and b) enhancing thegeneral habitat value of commercial foreststands. Wider forest measures include thefollowing:

o Forest design and restructuring – aimedat: breaking up large, even-aged coniferstands, to diversify species compositionand age structure of forests; incorporatingriparian zones; protecting features ofbiodiversity, archaeological and culturalvalue on operations sites;

o Brief, non-statutory impact appraisalcarried out by Coillte staff before forestoperations commence – includes anassessment of environmental and socialimpacts.

Enhancing biodiversity in commercial forestry– Coillte’s approach

Dr Aileen O’Sullivan6

6 Coillte Research and Environment, Newtownmountkennedy, Co. Wicklow Email: [email protected]

14


This paper focuses on progress to date withthe identification of biodiversity areas. Widerforest measures are not covered further here, butinformation is available on from CoillteTeoranta (Coillte 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003a).

BIODIVERSITY AREAS

Context

Guidelines for SFM certification indicate that aminimum of 15% of the forest unit should bemanaged with nature conservation as a primaryobjective (Mannion 1999, UKWAS 2000), i.e.overall, Coillte’s biodiversity areas shouldcomprise at least 15% of the estate.

The scale at which this ‘15%’ is identified isa very important consideration. Thecertification guidelines imply that each foreststand should have 15% identified and managedfor biodiversity. But, in reality, the land underCoillte’s stewardship – like the rest of thecountry – consists of a pool of sites whichrepresent the complete spectrum, fromoutstanding to minimal nature conservationinterest, with the majority of sites occupying thebroad middle ground. Depending on theirintrinsic value, different sites will merit adifferent management approach. Thus, Coillte isidentifying the ‘15%’ at sub-regional level, i.e.at the level of the Forest Management Unit.

The Coillte estate is divided into 36 ForestManagement Units (FMUs) (Figure 1). TheFMUs were delineated based on topographicaland management criteria. A FMU typicallyincludes about 15,000 hectares of Coillte land,ranging from just over 3,000 ha (Eastern BorderFMU or FMU 702) to just under 34,000 ha(Slieve Aughty’s FMU or FMU 405).

Because site types occur across a spectrum,as mentioned above, it can be difficult to knowwhere the biodiversity areas – the ‘15%’ –should begin and end. But despite itsshortcomings, this sub-regional, FMU-basedapproach provides a framework for theidentification of sites that require specialtreatment and it has proved useful.

Included in the ‘15%’ biodiversity areas ineach FMU will be all of the Coillte landproposed for designation by Dúchas, undernational and international nature conservationlegislation, i.e. Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs),Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) andSpecial Protection Areas (SPAs). This ensuresthat Coillte’s biodiversity programme is linkedto national objectives, as reflected in theWildlife Act (Anon. 1976, Anon. 2000) and theEU Birds and Habitats Directives (Anon. 1979,Anon. 1992). Nature conservation designationsin 2001 covered approximately 4.6% of theCoillte estate (Garrett 2001a).

The remainder of the target area will bemade up of: areas of good quality semi-naturalhabitat; areas that should be restored to semi-natural habitat; long-term retentions (foreststands retained beyond the normal commercialrotation or felling age) (UKWAS 2000).

Site Survey and Assessment

In order to properly identify biodiversity areas,Coillte is engaged in a process of site surveyand assessment. This survey programmecommenced in 2001 and is due for completionin 2005. The surveys are carried out byfreelance ecologists, while engaged on contractto Coillte, who work closely with local Coilltestaff. The ecologists typically visit up to about20% of the Coillte land within the FMU, assessthe nature conservation interest of each site, andrecommend whether it should be a biodiversityarea.

Since it is not feasible to have every Coillte-owned site visited and surveyed by an ecologist,a process of preliminary site selection wascarried out by Coillte for each FMU during2000 and 2001. Four avenues of informationprovided a list of potential biodiversity areas foreach FMU:

a) Coillte Forest Inventory and GIS provideda list of subcompartments recorded ashaving, for example, broadleaved highforest, mixed high forest, scrub, open

15


conifer stands, swamp, lake, unplantedland.

b) Woodland History Survey of the Coillteestate (Garrett 2001b).

c) Dúchas archive of sites proposed fornature conservation, i.e. NHAs, SACs,SPAs (Dúchas The Heritage Service2001).

d) Local Coillte staff knowledge of sites onthe ground.

The first three sources identified a largenumber of sites in each FMU with potentialnature conservation value. Local knowledge ofsites has proved invaluable in refining and/orexpending the lists of potential sites providedby the first three sources.

All of these data combine to produce for theecologists a target list of sites to be surveyed. Ateach site visited, habitats present are recorded,using the habitat classification system publishedby The Heritage Council (Fossitt 2000).Habitats are not mapped, but habitat codes are

FIGURE 1: Location of Coillte Forest Management Units (FMUs).

16


assigned to each forest subcompartment asmapped by the Coillte inventory, and the area ofeach habitat present is estimated and recorded.Any available information on the presence ofrare habitats or species is included in sitedescriptions. The ecologists also recommendsuitable management for each biodiversity area,in discussion with Coillte staff. Photographs aretaken to support site descriptions.

Preliminary Results

By the end of 2002, 14 FMUs were surveyed byecologists. So far, survey data have beencompiled only from the 7 FMUs surveyed in2001. Summary data from 2001 are presented inFigure 2. In these 7 FMUs, a total of 11,359 haof Coillte land has been proposed for inclusionin biodiversity areas.

Forests are the dominant habitat type,comprising 57% of the biodiversity areas

identified (Figure 2; Table 1). Forests hereinclude broadleaved, mixed and conifer highforest and scrub. The remainder is made up ofopen habitats, primarily peatlands (20%) andheaths (20%). Peatlands here include raisedbog, blanket bog, cutaway bog and fen, i.e. siteson deep peats, where peat depth is generally>50 cm (Fossitt 2000). Heaths include wetheaths (peat depth 15-50 cm) and dry heaths(peat depth usually <15 cm) (C. Douglas,Dúchas, pers. comm.). Small pockets of otherhabitats were also recorded.

The most abundant habitat types representedin Coillte biodiversity areas are conifer forest,dry heath and mixed woodland (Table 1). Someof the habitat types recorded in the FMUsurveys are considered ‘rare’ in a national andEuropean context, e.g. yew woodland,calcareous springs, native wet woodland,limestone pavement and unimproved (species-rich) grassland. These ‘rare’ habitats, by theirnature, tend to be small in size, but they are,

FIGURE 2: Summary of habitat types recorded in biodiversity areas recommended from surveys of 7 FMUs in theCoillte estate, completed in 2001. Habitat definitions follow Fossitt (2000) habitat classification, and are explainedin the text.

17


HABITAT NAME HABITAT CODE AREA (HA) TOTAL (HA)

Woodland and Scrub 6413

Oak-birch-holly woodland WN1 258

Oak-ash-hazel woodland WN2 156

Yew woodland WN3 2

Wet peduculate oak-ash woodland WN4 36

Riparian woodland WN5 11

Wet willow-alder-ash woodland WN6 76

Bog woodland WN7 128

(Mixed) broadleaved woodland WD1 543

Mixed broadlved/conifer woodland WD2 1319

(Mixed) conifer plantation WD3 335

Conifer plantation WD4 2933

Scattered trees and parkland WD5 2

Scrub WS1 355

Immature woodland WS2 220

Recently-felled woodland WS5 40

Peatlands 2278

Raised bog PB1 266

Upland blanket bog PB2 869

Lowland blanket bog PB3 417

Cutover bog PB4 411

Eroding blanket bog PB5 241

Rich fen and flush PF1 22

Poor fen and flush PF2 27

Transition mire and quaking bog PF3 24

Heath, Dense Bracken 2258

Dry siliceous heath HH1 1333

Dry calcareous heath HH2 7

Wet heath HH3 743

Montane heath HH4 125

Dense bracken HD1 51

TABLE 1: Habitats recorded in ecological survey of biodiversity areas in Coillte estate – data from 7 ForestManagement Units surveyed in 2001.

NOTE 1: Habitat Names and Codes follow Fossitt (2000);NOTE 2: Area values of 0 hectares denote values of <0.5 ha.

18


HABITAT NAME HABITAT CODE AREA (HA) TOTAL (HA)

Grassland and Marsh 149

Amenity grassland (improved) GA2 0

Dry calcareous and neutral grassland GS1 28

Dry meadows, grassy verges GS2 5

Dry-humid acid grassland GS3 38

Wet grassland GS4 74

Marsh GM1 5

Freshwater 138

Dystrophic Lakes FL1 2

Acid oligotrophic lakes FL2 29

Mesotrophic lakes FL4 7

Eutrophic lakes FL5 4

Turloughs FL6 16

Other artificial lakes and ponds FL8 3

Eroding/Upland rivers FW1 23

Depositing/Lowland rivers FW2 7

Calcareous springs FP1 1

Reed and large sedge swamps FS1 41

Tall-herb swamps FS2 6

Coastland 110

Lower salt marsh CM1 23

Upper salt marsh CM2 28

Marram dunes CD2 26

Fixed dunes CD3 17

Dune scrub and woodland CD4 10

Dune slacks CD5 6

Exposed Rock 13

Exposed siliceous rock ER1 9

Exposed calcareous rock ER2 2

Siliceous scree and loose rock ER3 1

Spoil and bare ground ED2 2

Active quarries and mines ED4 0

Cultivated and Built Land 1

Buildings and artificial surfaces BL3 1

GRAND TOTAL (Area classified, hectares) 11,360

Table 1 continued

19


nonetheless, extremely important in terms oftheir nature conservation value. Other habitatsthat appear, from Table 1, to be ‘rare’, e.g. lakes,exposed rock, are possibly under-recorded andare likely to be more widespread outsidebiodiversity areas. It is important to bear inmind that time on these surveys does not permita complete inventory of the habitats present inbiodiversity areas. Table 1 should be seen asonly indicative of the habitats present.

The large area of conifer forest inbiodiversity areas comprises a wide range ofsite types – both in terms of stand type and interms of the management objectives for theseareas. Some conifer forest is included because itis intended to convert it to a different habitattype, e.g. convert to open ground or to nativewoodland. This is only proposed where there isa clear nature conservation benefit to be gainedfrom such a conversion. Some conifer forest isincluded because it is of conservation value inits own right – management will be aimed atmaintaining a particular species composition orage structure.

Follow-up actions

The identification of biodiversity areas formsthe basis of a nature conservation strategy foreach FMU, which Coillte staff will beresponsible for delivering over the next fewyears. Management of these areas will involve arange of objectives, depending on site type. Insome cases, all that will be required is simply toretain what is already present, while other sitesmay require more active management, e.g.reflooding wetlands, conversion of forest toopen ground or conversion of conifer stands tonative woodland. Coillte is actively pursuingfinancial support for these special actions, e.g.under the EU LIFE-Nature programme (Anon.2003) and The Forest Service (2001) NativeWoodland Scheme. Work has alreadycommenced on a major nature conservationproject, funded jointly by the EU under theLIFE-Nature programme and by Coillte, whichis aimed at restoring afforested land to openblanket bog in SACs where this is deemed

appropriate, i.e. where the afforested blanketbog habitat has good restoration potential(Coillte 2003b).

WOODLAND HISTORY SURVEY

Context

Woodland sites that have a continuous historyof woodland cover have special significance innature conservation. This is because there aresome species of plant and animal that arespecially adapted to woodland habitatconditions. They cannot readily colonise new orfirst rotation forests (Hermy et al. 1999).Because Ireland lost almost all of its forestcover, we have already lost many of thesewoodland specialist species, but nonetheless,some survive. The immense importance of oldor ancient woodlands to species conservation isreflected in the attention these sites are nowreceiving in nature conservation programmeswithin the forestry sector (Mannion 1999,UKWAS 2000, Spencer 2002).

Survey Methodology

To address this issue, a complete review ofavailable old maps was carried out, to trace thewoodland history of all Coillte land. Theearliest available standardised set of mapsavailable for the whole of Ireland is the 6’:1mile series, the first edition of which wasproduced by the British Ordnance Surveybetween 1833 and 1844 (Table 2). These mapswere periodically updated by the OrdnanceSurvey (O.S.). A full coverage for the country isagain available in the third edition of the series,which was published between 1900 and 1954with the majority having been published in theperiod 1900-1915. These old maps show theboundary of woodlands extant at the time, andsymbols drawn in on each site indicate roughlythe composition of woodland cover.

For every portion of the Coillte estate, theformer woodland boundaries, as shown on the1st and 3rd Edition O.S. maps, were digitised

20


and entered into the Coillte GIS, and thewoodland types shown on the old maps wererecorded. This allowed a comparison withtoday’s forest coverage, as provided by theCoillte Forest Inventory. The Woodland HistorySurvey was completed in 2001 (Garrett, 2001b).

Summary Results

According to their history of woodland cover,sites were categorised into five categories(Table 3; Garrett 2001b). Of the total Coillteestate, over 88% consists of 20th centuryplantations on sites that, at the time, were openground – these are termed ‘recent plantations’.‘Old woodland sites’ account for 6.3% of theestate – these are sites that appear to have beencontinuously wooded since the 1830s. A further4% of the estate consists of ‘long-establishedplantation’, i.e. sites where forest wasestablished on open ground some time between1830s and 1910s. A small number of sites (1%

of the total estate) were classified as‘interrupted old woodland’, i.e. forest waspresent in the 1830s, but was then cleared by the1910s and was subsequently reforested. Finally,a small proportion of sites (0.6% of the estate),classified as ‘parkland’, formerly consisted ofvery open stands of trees, on land that wasprobably also used for grazing.

The data from the woodland history surveyhave not yet been fully analysed, however,some preliminary points have emerged. Ingeneral (though not always), the old woodlandsites – i.e. sites that have been continuouslywooded since the 1830s – are the mostimportant category from a nature conservationpoint of view. Taking the old woodland sites asa dataset in themselves, Figure 3 shows a sizedistribution graph of the old woodland sites. Asexpected from looking at the Irish landscapetoday, the vast majority of old woodland sitesare small and fragmented. The largest sizecategory is 2-4 hectares. The majority of oldwoodland sites are <20 hectares in size.

TABLE 2: Summary of recording technique employed during a map review of woodland history for the entire Coilltestate (Garrett, 2001b). O.S. = Ordnance Survey maps; Scale 6’:1 mile.

1st Edition O.S.1833-1844 A.D.

3rd Edition O.S.1900-1915 A.D.

Coillte Inventory2000 A.D.

Site Type Recorded

Wooded Wooded Wooded old woodland site

Wooded Open Ground Wooded interrupted old woodland

Very Open Woodland Very Open Woodland Very Open Woodland parkland

Open Ground Wooded Wooded long-established plantation

Open Ground Open Ground Wooded recent plantation

Woodland History Area (hectares) Area (% Coillte Estate)

Old woodland site 27,785 6.4%

Interrupted old woodland 4,325 1%

Parkland 2,471 0.6%

Long-established plantation 16,733 4%

Recent plantation 386,310 88%

TOTAL survey area 437,341 100%

TABLE 3: Summary results of woodland history survey of entire Coillte estate (Garrett, 2001b), as recorded fromOrdnance Survey maps (Scale 6’:1 mile).

21


However, there are five old woodland siteslarger than 300 hectares. The larger an oldwoodland site, the greater the chance that atleast parts of the site are much older than the170 years covered by the Woodland HistorySurvey. Consequently, these large old woodlandsites may in future be found to supportinteresting plant and animal communities.

Application of results

Old woodland sites are, as far as possible,included in the survey of biodiversity areas byecologists. Not all old woodland sites areincluded as biodiversity areas in each FMU.Inclusion in the biodiversity ‘15%’ depends onthe habitat value of each site. On most oldwoodland sites, the objective will be to balancenature conservation and timber productionobjectives.

CHALLENGES

The pace of development of Coillte’s natureconservation programme has been challenging.This rapid pace of change is also seen in thewider forestry sector, as well in other spheres

such as agriculture and the heritage and natureconservation sectors.

Particular challenges include:

! Achieving a balance between commercialand nature conservation objectives.

! Creating an awareness among foresters ofmanagement requirements for biodiversityareas, which are often at variance with therequirements of commercial timberproduction. Usually the management ofbiodiversity areas is required to be muchless intensive than that of commercialstands.

! Achieving clarity in nature conservationpolicy and practice among non-specialiststaff. A significant problem here is the lackof availability of clear interpretativematerial to assist in conveying natureconservation concepts and objectives,which often appear obscure to non-specialists.

! Lack of availability of biological data.Records of plant and animal species can bedifficult to obtain. Coillte is supportive ofThe Heritage Council’s initiative to

FIGURE 3: Size distribution of oldwoodland sites on the Coillte estate(Garrett 2001b).

22


address the need for a biological recordscentre in Ireland (McGowan et al. 2002).

CONCLUSION

The initiatives described above will make asignificant contribution to Ireland’s nationalnature conservation efforts. Biodiversity areasconstitute a significant expansion of thenational area of lands managed for natureconservation. The Woodland History Survey isthe first systematic survey of its kind at nationallevel.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the following people for theuse of their unpublished FMU Survey data:Stephen Heery, Ralph Sheppard, Dr AmandaBrowne, Dr Mary O’Connor, Fiona Dunne andDr Niamh Roche. Staff of Dúchas The HeritageService provided ecological data in support ofCoillte’s biodiversity programme. TheWoodland History Survey was carried out byWilliam Garrett while on contract to Coillte.Completion of that survey was possible onlywith the patient assistance of the followingpeople: Gus Barry and Denis Emerson, CoillteMapping, Leeson Lane, Dublin; Paul Ferguson,Map Library, Trinity College, Dublin.

REFERENCES

Anon. 1976. The Wildlife Act. GovernmentPublications, The Stationery Office, Dublin.

Anon. 1979. EU Directive 79/409/EEC on theConservation of Wild Birds (The BirdsDirective).

Anon. 1992. EU Directive 92/42/EEC on theConservation of Natural Habitats and of WildFauna and Flora (The Habitats Directive).

Anon. 2000. The Wildlife (Amendment) Act.Government Publications, The StationeryOffice, Dublin.

Anon. 2003. EU LIFE-Nature website –http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/home.htm.

Coillte. 2000. Annual Report 1999. Coillte Teoranta,Dublin.

Coillte. 2001. Social and Environmental Report,2000. Coillte Teoranta, Dublin.

Coillte. 2002. Social and Environmental Report,2001. Coillte Teoranta, Dublin.

Coillte. 2003a. The Coillte website – www.coillte.ie.

Coillte. 2003b. Restoring Active Blanket Bog inIreland. Project website –www.irishbogrestorationproject.ie

Dúchas The Heritage Service. 2001. Boundary mapsof NHAs, SACs, SPAs as displayed on website– www.heritagedata.ie

Forest Service. 2001. Native Woodland Scheme(Brochure). The Forest Service, Department ofthe Marine and Natural Resources, Wexford.

Forest Stewardship Council. 2003. Website –www.fscoax.org.

Fossitt, J. 2000. A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. TheHeritage Council, Kilkenny.

Garrett, W. 2001a. Nature ConservationDesignations on Coillte Properties. Report toCoillte Teoranta, Newtownmountkennedy.Unpublished.

Garrett, W. 2001b. Woodland History Survey of theCoillte Estate. Report to Coillte Teoranta,Newtownmountkennedy. Unpublished.

Hermy, M., Honnay, O., Firbank, L., Grashof-Bokdam, C. and Lawesson, J.E. 1999. Anecological comparison between ancient andother forest plant species of Europe, and theimplications for forest conservation. BiologicalConservation, 91; 9-22.

Mannion, T. 1999. Forest Management Standardsfor the Republic of Ireland. Second Draft. TheIrish Forest Certification Initiative Group,Tullamore.

McGowan, P., Wolfe Murphy, S., Stevenson, N.,Fasham, M., Tucker, G. 2002. Towards aNational Framework for the Management ofBiological Data. The Heritage Council,Kilkenny.

Spencer, J. 2002. Ancient Woodland on the ForestryCommission Estate in England. ForestEnterprise, U.K.

UKWAS. 2000. Certification Standard for the UKWoodland Assurance Scheme. UKWASSteering Group, UK.

23

Examining the effects of land-use, particularly afforestation, on biodiversity

THE NEED FOR IRISH STUDIES

Although the fauna and flora of Western Europeare comparatively well known and a largevolume of literature exists on the biodiversity ofEuropean forests, it is apparent that specificstudies of biodiversity in Ireland are necessary.The existing literature, both Irish andinternational, provides only a basis for suchstudies. This is because of the rather unusualcomposition and history of the Irish flora andfauna. For example, in the Foreword to hisencyclopaedic book on Ireland, Cabot (1999)writes that upon his arrival in Ireland ‘the firstarresting ornithological surprise was a hoodedcrow frisking on some rubbish….They were ararity where [he] had come from’. This crow,which is so familiar in Ireland, is absent frommost of Western Europe where it is replaced bythe carrion crow (c.f. Mullarney 2000, p.336).

This unique composition of Ireland’s floraand fauna is the result primarily of its islandstatus and the history of recolonization of theisland following the ice ages. However, humanactivities have also had a large impact. Forexample, D’Arcy (1999) describes how habitatdestruction and predation are likely to have ledto the loss of species such as the golden eagleand the bittern while many other animal speciessuch as the rabbit, frog and sika deer are knownto have been introduced by humans (Haydenand Harrington 2000).

It is also clear that the roles and populationdynamics of many species of animal and plantare contingent on the situations in which theyfind themselves. This is particularly obviouswhen we consider the situations with invasivespecies, such as rhododendron and Japaneseknotweed, which have been introduced byhumans. Thus when considering the effects of

human activities on biodiversity it is generallynot appropriate to simply extrapolate from oneset of circumstances to another.

THE POTENTIAL UNIQUENESSOF THE FAUNA AND FLORAOF IRISH FORESTS

Afforestation is one of the main forms of landuse change currently taking place in WesternEurope. For example, in Ireland, followingcenturies of deforestation and subsequentagricultural development, the total forested areaof the country was only 1.4% in 1905 (OCarroll1984). However, with the advent of state andEuropean Community sponsored plantingprogrammes, the forested area has reachedapproximately 10% of the country and thegovernment envisages an expansion in treeplanting of 30,000 ha per annum (Lowery1991). In addition, much of the planting is madeup of non-native conifers, particularly Sitkaspruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) andlodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var latifoliaWatson) (Cabot 1985). Thus, following a periodof almost total deforestation, a new, man-made,environment of exotic coniferous forest hasreplaced the natural woodland habitat.

Due to the history of Irish forests one mightexpect that many of the species relying onforests would have disappeared whendeforestation virtually eliminated forest coverfrom Ireland and that the composition of forestcommunities would have an unusualcomposition because many of the speciesoccurring in these habitats would not havecoevolved with the tree species which make upmost of the forest area. This expectation isalready known to be true for certain taxa. Forexample, 20 of the 52 bird species, which Fuller

Examining the effects of land-use, particularlyafforestation, on biodiversity

Thomas Bolger7

7 Department of Zoology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4. Email: [email protected]

24


(1995) lists as breeding and feeding withinclosed-canopy schrub and woodland, do notoccur in Ireland and birds, such as the greatspotted woodpecker, which once bred here, hasgone to extinction presumably due todeforestation (D’Arcy 1999). In addition, manywoodland plant species, common in the rest ofEurope, are either not present or are rare inIreland (e.g. Clabby and Osborne 1999). Thereis also a reduced richness of Elateridae,Bupresidae and Cerambycidae which one mightexpect in association with a native species,Scots pine (Speight 1985, 1988, 1989).

Some studies have been carried out of thebiodiversity present in Irish forests. There is aconsiderable literature available on birds,summarised in O’Halloran et al. (2002), carabidbeetles (e.g. Day and Carthy 1988, Day et al.1993, Coll et al. 1995, Coll 1998, Faky andGormally 1998), other insects (e.g. Breen 1977,1979a, b, c, Speight 1985, 1988, 1989) and soiland litter fauna (e.g. Little and Bolger 1995,Heneghan and Bolger 1996 a, b, O’Hanlon andBolger 1997) of Irish woodlands andhedgerows. However, although the flora andvegetation of semi-natural woodlands has alsobeen extensively studied (e.g. Kelly 1981,White 1985, Cross 1987, Kelly and Kirby 1982,Kelly and Iremonger 1997) there is very littleinformation on the flora of coniferousplantation forestry (e.g. Doyle and Moore1982).

An important question is whether the biotaof forests is any more depauperate than the

biotas of other habitat types in Ireland. Forexample, in the case of one relatively wellstudied group of insects, the carabid beetles,Ireland’s fauna is impoverished relative toEurope and only contains about 60% of thespecies which occur in Greet Britain. Inaddition, the carabid fauna of Irish forests isdistinct from those of other European forestsdue to the absence of many large woodlandspecies and the relatively rarity of species suchas Pterostichus oblongopunctatus (Fabricius)which are common in woodlands elsewhere(Coll et al. 1995). However, the fauna appearsto be equally depauperate in other habitat types(Table 1). This may not be the case for othergroups.

HOW SHOULD WE ASSESSBIODIVERSITY? WHAT BIODIVERSITY ARE WEINTERESTED IN?

A need is frequently expressed for indicators ofbiodiversity and other methods of ‘rapidbiodiversity assessment’ to assess overallbiodiversity (Oliver and Beattie 1993). Thisarises because a programme to assess changesin all components of biodiversity is clearlyimpossible. There are too many species presentin any place [e.g. 1000 species of soilinvertebrates in a single square metre of a beechforest (Schaefer and Schauermann 1990)]which in turn requires a logisticallyunreasonable number of experts. It has beensuggested that single groups of plants and

TABLE 1: Comparisons of number of carabid species found in Ireland and Great Britain based on various habitatfeatures. Habitat preferences based on Lindroth (1974).

Habitat Affinity Ireland Britain Proportion

Forest 24 43 0.56

Open 60 118 0.51

Bog 4 8 0.50

Altitude 12 17 0.71

Coastal 21 48 0.44

Dry 22 56 0.39

Hygrophilous 98 142 0.69

25


animals may serve as indicators for overallbiodiversity, e.g. Scarabeidae (Halffter andFavila 1993). However, many studies haveshown that different groups have highlyvariable responses to disturbance (e.g. Lawtonet al. 1998). Others have proposed ‘predictorsets’ of taxa (Kitching 1993, Stork 1995), the‘shopping basket’ approach (Niemelä and Baur1998) or synthetic indexes such as thoseproposed to assess the quality of runningfreshwaters based on their diversity and theidentity of the taxa.

However, to select the components ofbiodiversity to be assessed it is necessary tohave a clear view of the biodiversity that oneneeds, or wishes, to assess. For example, inmany biodiversity assessment programmeseither species richness or species diversity(where the relative abundance of the species istaken into account) are used and the systemwhich harbours the largest diversity is oftenimplicitly assumed to be the best in some sense.However, this is not always the case. If fauna orflora occurring in habitat patches of varyingsizes are sampled and the cumulative number ofspecies occurring in habitat patches plotted, inthe first instance starting with the largest habitatfragment and gradually adding the smaller ones,in the second starting with the smallest andgradually adding the larger ones then in

virtually all cases, it is found that many morespecies are present in several small patches thanin a single large patch of equivalent area. This isillustrated for a study of springtails and mites onfungal fruiting bodies in Figure 1 (O’Connelland Bolger 1997). Thus it could be argued thatthe most appropriate way to maintain highbiodiversity is to have a large number of smallpatches. The problem with this idea is that itignores the identity of the species found in thepatches. When this is examined, it is usuallyfound that the species in the small patches arewidespread or weedy species and that thehabitat specialists or species requiring complexcommunity structures are absent. This arisesbecause of a feature of many communitiescalled nestedness (e.g. Honnay et al. 1999).Therefore it is obvious that we also have toconsider the identity of the species and knowwhich species are most ‘valuable’ to us.

We have to be clear about the components ofbiodiversity that are of interest. Interest in thedetection and preservation of keystone specieswould be important from the sustainabilitypoint of view, flagship species, e.g. red grousein Mayo, are often used when the integrity ofhabitats is of particular interest and birds andbutterflies when aesthetic and public relationsexercises are of importance.

FIGURE 1: Relationshipbetween cumulative numberof species and cumulativehabitat size in one instancestarting with the largest patch,in the other starting with thesmallest.

26


SAMPLING DESIGN

A study carried out by Coll (1998) shows thatsampling design is critical when comparing thebiodiversity of open and forested habitats.Several previous studies showed that distinctcarabid assemblages occur in forested and openhabitats (e.g. Butterfield et al. 1995, Heliölä etal. 2001) and in this study the speciescomposition and biodiversity of Carabidae inconiferous forests and unafforested habitatswere compared.

In 1995, the carabid assemblages weresampled in a series of randomly selected openand afforested sites and significantly morespecies were found in the open sites. However,when the data were re-examined, it was foundthat the greatest amount of variation in the datawas not related to forestry but to altitude. Infact, the difference which had been detectedwas potentially an artefact of random siteselection because forested sites were on averageat slightly higher altitudes. In 1996 a similarstudy was carried out but, on this occasion, apaired design was used comparing adjacentopen and forested sites. On this occasion nodifference in number of species was detectedbut there was a change in species composition.For example, six species were foundexclusively in heathland: Notiophilus germinyiFauvel, Notiophilus palustris (Duftschmid),Olisthopus rotundatus (Paykull), Patrobusassimilis Chaudoir, Pterostichus adstrictus(Eschascholtz) and Pterostichus cupreus (L.),while four species were found uniquely in theforest plots adjacent to these: Amara familiaris(Duftschmid), Leistus fulvibarbis Dejean,Leistus rufomarginatus Duftschmid andTrechus micros (Herbst). Thus, diametricallyopposite conclusions can be drawn frominappropriate experimental design.

INFLUENCE OF LANDSCAPE

The landscape in which a particular habitatpatch is located will influence the speciescomposition of many taxa in the patch. Forestfragments surrounded by managed open

habitats contain elements of the field fauna(Halme and Niemelä 1993). There is a similarindication that a proportion of the Carabidaepresent in Irish forests reflect the surroundinghabitats and landscape. This is perhaps notsurprising given the fragmented nature andsmall size of many Irish forests stands. Usher etal. (1993) point out that small patches have alarge edge to interior ratio and are thereforelikely to be greatly influenced by surroundinghabitat. However, Heliölä et al. (2001) havefound that carabid assemblages at the edges offorests were more similar to those of the forestinterior and that open-habitat species did notpenetrate into the forests from clearcuts.

In our studies we have found that thesurrounding habitats can affect the penetrabilityof a landscape for particular species. Forexample, Abax parallelepipedus is a carabidbeetle found in most woodlands which havebeen studied in Ireland. It is also found inheathland, rough grassland and hedgerows.However, it is virtually absent from mostintensively managed pastures and tillage areas.Thus the presence of this species in thewoodland is likely to be influenced by thehabitat types surrounding the forests, thepresence or absence of hedgerows and thedistance between forest patches sites.

CONCLUSION

From the examples cited above it is obviousthat:

i) many aspects of biodiversity are contextdependent and therefore studied in have tocarried out in the Irish landscape;

ii) sampling design is critical if unbiasedresults are to be achieved from surveys;

iii) biodiversity can have several differentmeanings and the aspect of biodiversitywhich is being assessed needs to beidentified explicitly; and

iv) both habitat and landscape features need tobe taken into account when assessing theeffects of a land use on biodiversity.

27


REFERENCES

Breen, J. 1977. The distribution of Formica luqubrisZett. (Hymenoptera : Formicidae) in Ireland,with a discussion of its possible introduction.Irish Naturalists’ Journal 19 : 123-127.

Breen, J. 1979a. Worker populations of Formicalugubris Zett. nests in Irish plantation woods.Ecological Entomology 4: 1-7.

Breen, J. 1979b. Nest sites of Formica lugubris(Hymenoptera, Formicidae) in Irish plantationwoods. Journal of Life Sciences, Royal DublinSociety 1: 13-32.

Breen, J. 1979c. Aphids visited by Formica lugubris(Hymenoptera, Formicidae) including elevenspecies new to Ireland. Irish Naturalists'Journal 19: 349-352.

Butterfield, J., Luff, M.L., Baines, M. and Eyre,M.D. 1995. Carabid beetle communities asindicators of conservation potential in uplandforests. Forest Ecology and Management 79,63-77.

Cabot, D. 1985. The State of the Environment. AnForas Forbatha, Dublin

Cabot, D. 1999. Ireland. Harper Collins Publishers,London.

Clabby G. and Osborne B.A. 1999. Biological Floraof the British Isles: Mycelis muralis (L.)Dumort. Journal of Ecology 87: 156-172.

Coll, M.T. 1998. The carabid fauna(Coleoptera:Carabidae) of Irish woodlandsand adjacent habitats. PhD thesis, Dept. ofZoology, University College Dublin.

Coll, M., Heneghan, L. and Bolger, T. 1995. Carabidfauana in two Irish conifer stands: Acomparison with those of European forests.Biology and Environment 95B: 171-177.

Cross, J.R. 1987. Unusual stands of birch on bogs.Irish Naturalists’ Journal 22: 305-310.

D’Arcy, G. 1999. Ireland’s Lost Birds. Four CourtsPress, Dublin.

Day, K. R., Marshall S. and Heaney, C. 1993.Associations between forest type andinvertebrates: Ground beetle communitypatterns in a natural oakwood and juxtaposedconifer plantations. Forestry 66, 37-50.

Day, K.R. and Carthy, J. 1988. Changes in thecarabid beetle communities accompanying therotation of Sitka spruce. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 24, 407-415.

Doyle, G.J. and Moore, J.J. 1982. Floristic changesin developing conifer plantations growing onblanket peat in the west of Ireland. Ber. Intern.Symp. Intern. Verein. Vegetationskunde 25:699-716.

Fahy, O. and Gormally, M. 1998. A comparison ofplant and carabid beetle communities in anIrish oak woodland with a nearby coniferplantation and clearfell site. Forest Ecologyand Management 110, 263-273.

Fuller, R.J. 1995. Bird life of woodland and forest.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Halffter, G. and Favila, M.E. 1993. TheScarabaeinae (Insecta: Coleoptera) an animalgroup for analysing, inventorying andmonitoring biodiversity in tropical rainforestand modified landscapes. BiologyInternational 27: 15-21.

Halme, E. and Niemelä, J. 1993. Carabid beetles infragments of coniferous forest. AnnalesZoologica Fennici 30, 17-30.

Hayden, T. and Harrington, R. 2000. Exploring IrishMammals. Townhouse Press, Dublin.

Heliölä, J., Koivula, M. and Niemelä, J. 2001.Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera,carabidae) across a boreal forest – clearcutecotone. Conservation Biology 15, 370-377.

Heliölä, J., Koivula, M. and Niemelä, J. 2001.Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera,carabidae) across a boreal forest – clearcutecotone. Conservation Biology 15, 370-377.

Heneghan, L. and Bolger, T. 1996a. Effects of acidrain components on soil microarthropods: afield manipulation. Pedobiologia.40: 413-438.

Heneghan, L. and Bolger, T. 1996b. Effects of thecomponents of ‘acid rain’ on the contributionof soil microarthropods to ecosystem function.Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1329-1344.

Honnay, O., Hermy, M. and Coppin, P. 1999. Nestedplant communities in deciduous forestfragments: species relaxation or nestedhabitats? Oikos 84: 119-129

Kelly, D.L. 1981. The native forest vegetation ofKillarney, south-west Ireland: an ecologicalaccount. Journal of Ecology 69: 437-472.

Kelly, D.L. and Iremonger, S.F. 1997. Irish wetlandwoods: the plant communities and theirecology. Biology and Environment,Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy97B:1-32.

28


Kelly, D.L. and Kirby, E.N. 1982. Irish nativewoodlands over limestone. Journal of LifeSciences, Royal Dublin Society 3: 181-198.

Kitching, R.L. 1993. Towards rapid biodiversityassessment - lessons following studies ofarthropods of rainforest canopies. RapidBiodiversity Assessment: Proceedings of theBiodiversity Assessment Workshop MacquarieUniversity 1993 (Research Unit forBiodiversity and Bioresources, eds.), pp. 26-30. Macquarie University, Sydney.

Lawton, J.H., Bignell, D.E., Bolton, B., Bloemers,G.F., Eggleton, P., Hammond, P.M., Hodda,M., Holt, R.D., Larsen, T.B., Mawdsley, N.A.,Stork, N.E., Srivastava, D.S. and Watt, A.D.1998. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxaand effects of habitat modification in tropicalforest. Nature 391, 72-76.

Lindroth, C.H. 1974. Handbooks for theidentification of British insects, 4(2):Coleoptera, Carabidae. Wane, London.

Little, D. and Bolger, T. 1995. The effects ofalternative land-uses on soil properties andmesofaunal communities in Calcareous BrownEarth soils in Eastern Ireland. Biology andEnvironment 95B, 183-193.

Lowery, M. 1991. Forestry - Its part in ruraldevelopment. In: The Right Trees in the RightPlaces: The proceedings of a Conference onForestry and the Environment held at the RoyalDublin Society on October 17-19, 1990, (C.Mollan and M. Moloney, eds), pp. 35-41.Royal Dublin Society, Dublin.

Moles, R.T. and Breen, J. 1995. Long-term changewithin lowland farmland bird communities inrelation to field boundary attributes. Biologyand Environment 95B, 203-215.

Mullarney, K., Svennson, L., Zetterström, D. andGrant, P.G. 2000. Collins Bird Guide. HarperCollins Publishers, London.

Niemelä, J. and Baur, B. 1998. Threatened species ina vanishing habitat: plants and invertebrates incalcareous grasslands in the Swiss Juramountains. Biodiversity and Conservation7,1407-1416.

OCarroll, N. 1984. The Forests of Ireland. TuroePress, Dublin.

O’Connell, T. and Bolger, T. 1997. Stability,ephemerality and dispersal ability: Soilmicroarthropod assemblages on fungalsporophores. Biological Journal of the LinneanSociety 62, 111-131.

O’Halloran, J., Walsh, P.M., Giller, P.S. and Kelly,T.C. 2002. Forestry and bird diversity inIreland: a management and planning guide.COFORD, Dublin.

O'Hanlon, R.P. and Bolger, T. 1997. Biomass,growth and secondary production ofArcitalitrus dorrieni (Hunt) (Crustacea:Amphipoda: Talitridae) at two sites in Co.Galway, Ireland. Journal of Zoology 241: 409-428.

Oliver, I. and Beattie, A.J. 1993. A possible methodfor the rapid assessment of biodiversity.Conservation Biology 7, 562-568.

Schaefer, M. and Schauermann, J. 1990. The soilfauna of beech forests: comparison between amull and a moder soil. Pedobiologia 34, 299-314.

Speight, M.C.D. 1985. The extinction of Pinussylvestris in Ireland: relevant faunal data. IrishNaturalists’ Journal 21, 449-454.

Speight, M.C.D. 1988. The Irish cerambycid fauna(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Bulletin of theIrish Biogeographical Society 11, 41-77.

Speight, M.C.D. 1989. The Irish elaterid andbuprisid fauna (Coleoptera: Elateridae andBuprisidae). Bulletin of the IrishBiogeographical Society 12,31-63.

Stork, N.E. 1995. Measuring and monitoringarthropod diversity in temperate and tropicalforests. Measuring and MonitoringBiodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests(T.J.B. Boyle and B. Boontawee, eds), pp. 257-270. Centre for International Forestry Research(CIFOR), Bogor.

Usher, M.B., Field, J.P. and Bedford, S.E. 1993.Biogeography and diversity of grounddwelling arthropods in farm woodlands.Biodiversity Letters 1, 54-62.

White, J. 1985. The Gearagh woodlands, Co. Cork.Irish Naturalists Journal 21, 391-396.

29


INTRODUCTION

Currently across the globe there isunprecedented interest in the earth'sbiodiversity (e.g. EWGRB 1997). In 1993, onehundred and fifty countries (including Ireland)signed the Convention on Biological Diversity.Other related conventions include theConvention on Sustainable Development.Forests have come under particular scrutiny,with the UN setting up intergovernmentalpanels to agree on procedures for forestplanning and management.

Each country is now obliged to worktowards establishing a legal and institutionalframework for Sustainable Forest Management(SFM) (Forest Service 1999). The importanceof biodiversity and its assessment has takencentre place in this process. Forestry isbecoming increasingly important in Ireland,with the industry intending to have up to 15% ofthe Irish landscape planted by the year 2010(Anon. 1996). There is a need to determinenational (and European) indicators ofsustainable forest management. The trees beingplanted are mostly exotic conifers, though thereis a shift to plant more deciduous broadleaves inthe last number of years, with a national targetof 20% (Department of Agriculture Food andForestry 1996). One of the great driving forcesfor sustainable forest management is the needfor Environmental Certification to demonstratethat timber is produced in a sustainable waywithout damaging the environment.

Plantation forest provides a habitat forelements of Ireland's biodiversity. While therehas been some work on birds (O'Halloran et al.

1998), these data and those for other taxa arerather limited. The dramatic habitat changesthat occur over the forest cycle can be expectedto influence biodiversity positively ornegatively, but much work is needed to try toassess structure, composition and managementpractices most optimal for the maintenance andenhancement of biodiversity. New areas offorest (broad-leaved or coniferous) willpotentially provide support for or encouragerecolonisation by some components ofbiodiversity. Potential losses of open-countrybiota, dependent on the ‘traditional’ culturallandscape of much of Ireland (Aalen et al.1997), must also be considered however.

Assessment of biodiversity in any habitat orlandscape is a difficult task to achieve on acomprehensive scale, given the range ofcomponents of biodiversity (different biota) thatcould be measured if logistics allowed. At most,studies aimed at assessing biodiversity directlycan expect to measure the occurrence anddiversity of only a small proportion of biota,whether animal, plant, fungal or microbial.Choosing the appropriate groups to study raisesquestions of subjectivity, and the diversity ofdifferent groups may respond differently tohabitat and other environmental factors. Anadditional approach is to try to identify featuresthat can be used to predict biodiversity, at leastin relative terms for comparisons over space ortime. In some cases, particular components ofbiodiversity (e.g. species diversity of 'group X')may vary in tandem with ‘overall biodiversity’(or, at least, with our perceived notion of overallbiodiversity). Recent studies involvingmembers of BIOFOREST have identified anumber of potential indicators of forest

Biodiversity of plantation forests in Ireland:BIOFOREST project

J. O’Halloran8, T. Gittings8, G.F. Smith9, M. Wilson8, A. Oxbrough9, S. O’Donoghue9, L. French9, P.S. Giller8, S. Iremonger9, J. Pithon8, D.L. Kelly9, F.J.G. Mitchell9, T.C. Kelly8, P. Dowding9, A. O’Sullivan10 , P. Neville10, A.-M. McKee9, L. Coote9

8 BIOFOREST Project, Department of Zoology, Ecology, and Plant Science, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork9 BIOFOREST Project, Department of Botany, Trinity College Dublin10 Coillte Teoranta

30


biodiversity (Larsson et al. 2002), which can bebroadly divided into three classes as follows:

! Structural indicators (e.g. area of forestfrom national through landscape down tostand scales, field boundary connectivitybetween forests or other habitats on alandscape scale, or amount of dead woodon a stand scale).

! Compositional indicators (measurementsof actual components of biodiversity, e.g.number or diversity of tree species ondifferent scales, numbers or diversity ofspecies of particular animal groups, etc., ifthese are considered likely to reflect orpredict overall biodiversity).

! Functional indicators (e.g. frequency andintensity of natural or human activities,including land management).

The BIOFOREST project aims to: 1) studybiodiversity and its assessment in afforestationsites, 2) assess biodiversity at different stages ofthe forest cycle, and 3) investigate experimentalmethods to enhance biodiversity in plantationforests. Fundamental to our approach is theidentification of structural, compositional andfunctional indicators of biodiversity. Theseindicators can then be used to enhance theassessment and management of biodiversity atall stages of forest development. In addition, theoutputs of the project can be used to guide thedevelopment of sustainable forestry policy inIreland.

Here we provide some information on theBIOFOREST project, and we present somepreliminary data and some details of ourproposed work on biodiversity enhancement ofplantation forests.

THE BIOFOREST PROJECT

The BIOFOREST project is a five year projectwhich started in 2001 and will be completed in2005; it is divided into three sub-projects asfollows:

Sub-project 1: Biodiversity assessment ofafforestation sites;

Sub-project 2: Assessment of biodiversity atdifferent stages of the forest cycle, and

Sub-project 3: Investigation of experimentalmethods to enhance biodiversity inplantation forests.

Sub-project 1 Biodiversityassessment of afforestation sites

Afforestation in Ireland is no longer confined tothe poorer uplands, and the types of sites beingplanted are quite diverse, ranging from bog andheath to different types of grassland. Thechanges in the landscape that are being broughtabout by afforestation activities are quitesignificant, and have led to questions about theirimplications for biodiversity. Scientific datashowing how land use change affectsbiodiversity are scant, and there is debate abouthow to optimise the landscape for biodiversity.There is currently no protocol for on-siteassessment of the biodiversity of areas to beafforested, and for projecting how afforestationactivities may affect them.

Previous biodiversity studies of Irishhabitats of the type currently being afforestedhave been somewhat uneven, but some(heathland, unimproved grassland, etc.) containdistinctive and highly localized plantcommunities (e.g. lowland heath, a rarevegetation type away from coastal areas);collectively they include several major elementsin Ireland’s plant and animal diversity. Eachhabitat may include a number of scarce and rarespecies, including legally protected species.Because of the absence of a functioningbiological records centre in Ireland, standardinventory data that would normally underpinstrategic planning are not available. For thisreason, the development of the forest industryand conservation of biological diversity maycome into conflict. If biodiversity were to beassessed for potential sites, such conflict mightsubside as decisions could be based onobjective scientific data.

31


Main Objectives

! Develop methodologies for biodiversityassessment and identify indicator speciesin important habitats that might besubjected to afforestation.

! Compare species composition between arange of recently afforested sitesrepresenting different habitats, and non-afforested equivalent habitats.

! Assess the efficacy of the ForestryBiodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service2000) and recommend improvements.

Methods

The approach taken here is a comparison of thebiodiversity of recently afforested sites withadjacent, closely comparable sites that haveremained unplanted. The sites are selected fromfour frequently-afforested habitat types: wetgrassland, improved grassland, cutover blanketbog and wet heath, with balanced replicationamong the habitat types. In addition,before/after surveys of five sites afforested inthe winter of 2002/2003 are being carried out.

A comprehensive in-depth inventory of alltaxa is outside the scope of this project: insteada targeted approach will be used, with threeavenues:

! Literature searches and consultation withforestry and biological institutionsinternationally have been used to draft asuitable methodology for assessing thebiodiversity of afforestation sites inIreland (Gittings et al. 2002).

! Current knowledge on the biodiversity ofhabitats most usually used for planting isbeing assembled and used to reinforce thechoice of indicators of biodiversity in eachhabitat type.

! The outputs from these reviews will guidesurveys of flowering plants, ferns, mosses,liverworts, birds, and selected invertebratefauna in a number of study sites. Rare andthreatened species will be highlighted.

The first season of fieldwork for this projecthas been completed (Figure 1), and another twoseasons are planned.

Sub- project 2: Assessment ofbiodiversity at different stages ofthe forest cycle

This sub-project examines the current gaps inknowledge about how forest biodiversitychanges during the forest growth cycle. Mostplantation forests in Ireland are managed undera clearfelling regime, which means that theyhave distinct stages of development from theplanting stages, up through thicket and polestages, to finally harvesting and re-planting, or‘overmature’ (where the forest is left to growbeyond the commercial optimum). It is essentialto have a picture of biodiversity that representsnot only one stage in the forest cycle, but aseries of pictures that can be put together toprovide a better picture of biodiversity in thecomplete forest system.

Forest biodiversity will not only be affectedby growth stage but by the forest type. Most ofthe plantation forest in Ireland is coniferous,mainly Sitka spruce, and the biota of theseforests will differ both from each other and fromother forest types, such as those dominated bybroadleaves. These latter were veryuncommonly planted in the past but are gainingin popularity due to changes in policy by theForest Service. In addition to the differencesbetween forests due to tree species dominance,there are differences due to variations in theenvironment, even within forests of a particulartree species type.

Main objectives

! Assess the range of biodiversity inrepresentative forests at key stages of theforest cycle

! Review and recommend opportunities forenhancement of biodiversity in plantationforests

32


! Assess the effectiveness of the ForestBiodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service2000).

Methods

Study sites were selected according to treespecies dominance and growth stage, andcovered as broad a geographical area as waspracticable. Fieldwork was conducted in 2001and 2002 and included sites sampled in Sitkaspruce forests, ash forests and non-intimatemixtures of Sitka spruce and ash. Pre-thicket,thicket, mid-rotation and mature stands weresampled (Figure 1).

Using standard survey methods, field datawere collected on particular components ofbiodiversity, including specialists on deadwood. Vascular plants, mosses and liverwortswere recorded from 142 botanical quadrats in39 sites, Syrphidae (hoverflies) and Lepidoptera(butterflies and moths) were sampled in 65

malaise traps from 35 sites, spiders wererecorded using 1575 pitfall traps sampled overthree periods in 35 sites, and birds weresampled using 4-9 point-counts for each of 40sites, with two or three visits to each site (total380 data sets).

Preliminary results from Sub-project 2

Plants:

The 2002 field survey for plants covered thepre-thicket (about 5 years old) stage of all foresttypes. Pure Sitka spruce sites were the mostspecies-rich forest type: on average 25 specieswere observed in the 10 x 10 m quadrats.However, there appears to be no significantdifference in total richness between the foresttypes (p>0.05) (Figure 2). Although the pre-thicket ash forests were the most species-poor, a10 x 10 m quadrat on these sites still supports anaverage of 22.7 species.

FIGURE 1: Locations of BIOFORESTstudy sites sampled in 2001 and 2002for Sub-projects 1 and 2.

33


The average species richness of each pre-thicket forest is displayed in Figure 3. The ashcompartment of the mixed Lurgan Great studysite was the most species-rich forest, where anaverage of 35 species were found in eachquadrat. A mixed site was also found to be themost species-poor: only an average of 9.7species were identified in the 10 x 10 mquadrats in the Sitka spruce compartment ofKilmacow.

The pre-thicket Sitka spruce forests weremore species-rich than the thicket, mid-rotationand mature pure spruce forests (Figure 4), andthey have comparable levels of richness to thethicket and mature ash forests. Any differencesin species richness between the Sitka spruce andash forests becomes more apparent as the forestcycle progresses.

FIGURE 2: Mean plant species richness of the Sitka spruce and ash forests at the pre-thicket stage (bars showSE).

FIGURE 3: Mean plant species richness of the pre=thicket forests (bars show SE).

34


Birds:

More than fifty-five bird species were recordedduring 2001 fieldwork. Preliminary analysesindicate clear differences between the birdcommunities of young plantations (in whichwillow warblers and redpolls are abundant) andolder forests (in which goldcrests and coal titsare more numerous). Some of the variation inthe data appears to be related to tree speciescomposition as well as to age (see Figure 5).The two bird species recorded most frequentlywere wren and chaffinch. Wrens were recordedtwice as frequently as chaffinches in all agesand types of forest except for mature Sitka,where approximately twice as many chaffinchesas wrens were recorded, and mid-rotation Sitka,where numbers of chaffinches and wrens wereapproximately equal. Species richness and totalnumbers of birds also appear to vary with foresttype and age. Further analyses will be based onbird species densities.

Hoverflies:

Some preliminary data analyses are shown inFigure 6. This compares the composition of the

syrphid fauna in paired forest road and forestinterior samples from four mature Sitka spruceforests. All the forest interior samples werefrom small (< 200 m2) clearings. The number ofhoverflies in the set analysed was 1120individuals of 39 species. The categorisationreflects the habitat type(s) that the species aretypically associated with. Supplementary openspace refers to species which only occur inconifer forests when there are at least somesmall areas of open space habitat present. Thefigure shows that samples from forest roads andwithin the forest had similar numbers of forestspecialist species, but the road samples hadlower abundances. The forest road samples hadgreater species richness and abundances ofgeneralists, supplementary open space and openspace specialists.

Sub-project 3: Investigation ofexperimental methods to enhancebiodiversity in plantation forests

According to Peterken (1996), ‘the treatment ofthe open spaces is the single most importantfactor in the success or failure of natureconservation within plantations’. The

FIGURE 4: Mean plant species richness of the Sitka spruce and ash forests at different stages of the forest cycle(bars show SE).

35


FIGURE 5: Effect of tree age and species on bird communities in some Irish forest types.

FIGURE 6: Habitat associations of hoverflies in malaise samples from forest roads and Sitka spruce forest interior(bars show SE).

36


distribution, composition and management ofopen space within forests is a factor that isacknowledged to be important by therequirement under the Forest BiodiversityGuidelines (Forest Service 2000) for 15% openspace and retained habitats in new plantations.It is a factor that is amenable to intervention forbiodiversity enhancement, both at the forestplanning stage, and through the subsequenttreatment of the open space during the forestcycle. Afforestation can affect the speciescomposition of adjacent habitats of biodiversityimportance (Cameron 1994). Management ofopen space, following its incorporation into aforestry plantation, can affect its biodiversity(Humphrey and Patterson 2000). Therefore,research on the biodiversity of open space inplantations would contribute significantly tobiodiversity enhancement of plantation forests.

Objectives

The objective of this sub-project is to identifythe optimum configuration and management ofopen space within plantation forests forenhancement of biodiversity.

! Determine the effects of differentconfigurations of open space onbiodiversity within forested areas.

! Determine the effects of experimentalmanipulations regarding open space inforests.

! Make recommendations as to howmanagement practices can positivelyaffect biodiversity in forests.

The project will involve both an extensiveand intensive survey, as well as supplementarywork on birds of conservation concern.

Extensive Survey

The extensive survey will examine forests witha variety of different configurations of openspace. The variables to be examined willinclude some, or all, of the following:

! Total percentage of open space.

! Composition of open space (rides, retainedhabitats, firebreaks, etc.).

! Distribution of open space.

! Management of open space.

To allow adequate replication, the surveysites will be restricted to Sitka spruce stands ofa limited range of ages. The survey design willbe based upon matched clusters of sites. Withineach cluster, factors such as geographicallocation, soil type and altitude, will be as similaras possible and open space configurations willvary. Sites with more than the currentlyrecommended 15% unplanted land will beincluded where possible.

Vegetation

Environmental conditions, such as light,humidity and wind speed, in open spaces withina forestry plantation and in stand interiors differconsiderably. Therefore, terrestrial vegetationwill be evaluated using a transect approach,where quadrats will be sampled in given openspace, at the forest edge and within theadjoining plantation. In addition, there will be aparticular focus on epiphytes for the floralsurvey, which will be innovative andinformative. The ecological distribution ofepiphyte species is governed by a complex ofgradients, notably: (i) host tree species, (ii)position on host tree, (iii) stage of the forestcycle, (iv) rainfall and humidity regime, (v) airquality. Similar to the terrestrial survey, theepiphyte survey will compare trees in (a) densestands, (b) open spaces and (c) at intervals on agradient from forest interior to margins andgaps. All sampled trees will be permanentlymarked, with a view to downstream monitoring.The effects of large and small gaps will becompared. Epiphyte sampling may be based onthe methodology of Johannson (1974), asmodified by Cornelissen and ter Steege (1989);viz. a division of the tree into six zones: BT:base of trunk, LT: lower trunk, UT: upper trunk,LC: lower/inner canopy, MC: mid-canopy, UC:

37


upper/outer canopy. A standardisedmethodology will be used for recording withineach zone. Sampling of upper/outer canopy maybe curtailed in the light of time and safetyconstraints.

Invertebrates

The invertebrate sampling will focus onhoverflies (Syrphidae) and spiders (Aranae), asin the other sub-projects. Malaise traps will beused to sample hoverflies, and the results willbe interpreted using the Syrph The Net database(Speight et al. 2001) to determine the relativecontribution of various types of open spacehabitat components to the overall syrphidbiodiversity. Pitfall traps and vacuum samplingwill be used to sample spiders. Plots of pitfalltraps will be located in a range of open spacemicrohabitats, and vacuum sampling will becarried out near to each pitfall plot, based upontrial work (pitfall trapping and sweep-netsampling) carried out in 2001.

Birds

We propose to sample bird communities in theopen spaces and the closed forest canopy usingstandard survey methods.

Experimental Manipulations

The experimental manipulations will involvecreation of new open space and/or widening ofexisting open space. The manipulations will becarried out in association with Coillte. Post-manipulation surveys will be carried out usingthe same methodologies as the extensivesurveys. The before/after comparison would bebetween the biodiversity of the open space inthe forest before and after, not between thebiodiversity of the area physically manipulated.

Birds of Conservation Concern

The scale of interest for forest management forbirds is much larger than it is for plants and

invertebrates. Therefore, additional bird surveywork will be also carried out which will befocus on bird species of conservationimportance which could benefit from large-scale management of plantation forests. Thiswill involve targeted survey work and review ofexisting data. For example, the hen harrierbreeds in young plantations. In the same waythe size of clearfells and the subsequentmanagement of restock, e.g. application ofherbicide to control the development of groundvegetation may be important for endangeredspecies, e.g. nightjar (Ravenscroft 1989), a redlisted species in Ireland (Whilde 1993, Newtonet al. 1999). Hen harrier and nightjardistribution will be analysed in conjunctionwith the Coillte and FIPS databases to identifyassociations with particular forest managementpractices.

Further information on the project can beobtained on http: http://bioforest.ucc.ie

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is a product of the BIOFORESTproject, which is funded by COFORD and theEnvironmental Protection Agency under theNational Development Plan 2000-2006. We arevery grateful to all those foresters andlandowners who have assisted us, by providingaccess to study sites, and other help.

REFERENCES

Cameron, A. 1994. The effect of afforestation on thephysical and biological characteristics ofblanket bog. PhD., Queen's University Belfast.

Cornelissen, J.H.C. and ter Steege, H. 1989.Distribution and ecology of epiphyticbryophytes and lichens in dry evergreen forestof Guyana. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5, 131-150.

Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry. 1996.Growing for the Future: A strategic plan forthe development of the forestry sector inIreland. The Stationery Office, Dublin.

Forest Service. 2000. Forest Biodiversity Guidelines.Forest Service, Department of the Marine andNatural Resources, Dublin.

38


Humphrey, J.W. and Patterson, G.S. 2000. Effects oflate summer cattle grazing on the diversity ofriparian pasture vegetation in an upland coniferforest. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 986-996.

Johannson, R. 1974. Ecology of vascular epiphytesin West African rain forest. ActaPhytogeographica Suecica 59, 1-129.

Newton, S., Donaghy, A., Allen, D., and Gibbons, D.1999. Birds of conservation concern in Ireland.Irish Birds 6, 333-342.

Peterken, G.F. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecologyand conservation in northern temperateregions. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Ravenscroft, N.O.M. 1989. The status and habitat ofthe nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus in coastalSuffolk. Bird Study 36, 161-169.

Speight, M.C.D., Castella, E., Obrdlik, P., and Ball,S. (eds). 2001. Syrph the Net, the database ofEuropean Syrphidae. Syrph the Netpublications, Dublin.

Whilde, A. 1993. Threatened Mammals, Birds,Amphibians and Fish in Ireland. Irish RedData Book: Vertebrates. HMSO, Belfast.

39

Enhancing biodiversity in UK plantation forests: future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

UK forestry has changed considerably over thelast 20 years. As the demands of society haveevolved, so there has been a shift in the ethos offorestry from a focus purely on timberproduction, to an embracing of sustainableforest management and the delivery of socialand environmental benefits (Rollinson 2003).Biodiversity is a key component of sustainableforest management and through national andinternational political processes such as the1985 Amendment to the Wildlife andCountryside Act, the 1992 Convention onBiological Diversity (The Rio Earth Summit),the EU Habitats and Species Directive, and the1993 Helsinki Agreement, is now firmlyenshrined in British forestry policy and practice(Stevenson 2000). In the 1990s, managementfor biodiversity was driven largely by: statutoryrequirements (such as protection of Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest); the implementationof the UK Biodiversity Action plan with itsfocus on the protection of priority species andhabitats (Anon. 1995); and the adoption of theUK Forestry Standard with its associatedguidelines (Anon. 1998). A number of measureswere put in place including:

! A reduction in the rate of uplandafforestation;

! Expansion, restoration, and improvementin the condition of priority nativewoodland habitats and conservation of thespecies they support;

! Conservation of genetic resources;

! Restructuring of forests at the landscapescale to reduce visual impact;

! Increasing open space and broadleavedplanting both within new woodland and

during restocking;

! Removal of dense conifer stands alongstreams to reduce shading.

Guidance has been produced to helpmanagers implement these measures (Table 1).Much of this guidance remains relevant tomanagement at the current time. Initiatives suchas the restoration of native woodland on plantedancient woodland sites, and the establishment ofnew native woodlands have been, and willcontinue to form a significant part ofsustainable forest management for theforeseeable future (Spencer 2002; Thompson etal. 2003). However, the pace of change incommercial forestry has increased considerablyin recent years leading to profound changes inthe way UK forests as a whole will be managedboth for biodiversity and other objectives in thefuture. A number of key drivers of change canbe identified:

1. Devolution of biodiversity and forestrypolicies and practices from the UK level toindividual countries (Scotland, England,Wales and Northern Ireland), leading tothe development of separate biodiversity(e.g. Anon. 2003) and forestry strategies(Anon. 1999, Anon. 2000a, Anon. 2002)for each country.

2. Increased emphasis on the social benefitsof forestry at the country level especiallyin relation to improving communityinvolvement in forest design andmanagement and enhancing recreationfacilities (O'Brien 2003).

3. A greater focus on management at thelandscape scale with increasingrecognition that there should be betterintegration of forestry and agriculture tohelp rationalise public expenditure, and

Enhancing biodiversity in UK plantationforests: future perspectives

Jonathan Humphrey11

11 Forest Research, Northern Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9SY. Email: [email protected]

40


produce diverse landscapes of greatervalue to wildlife (Anon. 2002a).

4. Raised awareness of the value ofplantations of introduced conifer speciesas habitats for native flora and faunaincluding some endangered species(Humphrey et al. 2002b, ForestryCommission 2003), and the need forimproved integration with nativewoodland (Mason et al. 1999) and otherhabitats at the landscape scale (e.g.through Forest Habitat Networks, Peterken2003).

5. The development of certification schemesfor sustainable forest management. TheUK woodland Assurance Scheme(UKWAS - Anon. 2000b) sets out detailedguidance and requirements for managersseeking to meet the desired managementstandards, including a number ofchallenging criteria for biodiversityprotection and enhancement.

6. Continuing low economic return fromtimber production (Forestry Commission2002). External economic factors havepushed down timber prices (Figure 1) suchthat in some parts of the UK the cost offelling and restocking operations is notbeing met by timber revenues, with manyowners and managers seeking radicalalternatives to traditional productionforestry based on Sitka spruce.

Quine et al. (2003) reviewed the value ofconifer plantations in the UK for biodiversityand concluded in broad terms, that highestspecies-richness and diversity occurred either inthe early successional stages of the forests cycle(for 10-20 years after planting) or in standsretained beyond economic maturity (over 40-60years in the case of Sitka and Norway spruce).These findings supported earlier proposals byPeterken et al. (1992) that biodiversity was bestmaximised in production forests by adopting astrategy of increasing the amount of early andlate successional habitat at the expense of mid-rotation habitat.

GENERAL THEME TOPICS PUBLICATIONS

Needs of special speciesand habitats

Genetic conservationConservation of genetic resource (Ennos et al. 2000)

Use of local origins (Herbert et al. 1999)

Special habitats

Restoration of native woodland on planted ancientwoodland sites (Thompson et al. 2003)

Peatland restoration (Patterson and Anderson 2000)

Special species

Red squirrel (Pepper and Patterson 1998)

Forest birds (Currie and Elliot 1997)

Raptors (McGrady et al. 1997; Petty 1998)

Habitat management andenhancement

Tree species diversity Inclusion of broadleaves (Humphrey et al. 1998)

Impacts of herbivores Grazing (Mayle 1999; Gill 2000)

Encouragement ofstructural diversity

Deadwood (Humphrey et al. 2002a); Silviculturalsystems (Kerr 1999); edge management (Ferris andCarter 2000)

General

All aspects of biodiversityForest Nature Conservation Guidelines (ForestryCommission 1990)

Forests and waterForests and Water Guidelines (Forestry Commission2000)

TABLE 1: Examples of recent guidance relating to biodiversity management.

41


Early successional forest stands provideniches for open ground and scrub species ofparticular conservation importance in uplandBritain (Humphrey et al. 2002c, Fuller 2003).Linked to this is the need to maintain a finegrain mosaic of both permanent and transientopen space within young forests connected toexternal open space thereby enhancingmovement of organisms around the forest(Quine et al. 2003). Quine et al. (2003) alsosuggest a number of other measures to enhanceopen ground and early successionalcommunities such as: ensuring that regeneration(planted or natural) is widely spaced; thinningand keeping rotations short to enhance survivalof non-forest organisms and the soil seed banketc.; and maximising the occurrence of edges.Substantial areas of spruce forests in the northand west of the UK are becoming increasinglyunproductive economically and the conversionof conifer stands to open, mixed coniferbroadleaved stands is being considered,together with deforestation and the creation ofvaried edge habitat.

Whilst the development of open ground andearly successional habitat within forests is animportant issue, the aim of this paper is toconsider the benefits to biodiversity of retaining

conifer stands beyond normal economic fellingage, together with advising on the best locationfor these stands and how to manage them. Thefocus is primarily on commercial upland spruceplantations and the role that mature woodlandconditions might play within these forests inproviding habitats for native flora and fauna.

WHY FOCUS ON CREATINGMATURE WOODLANDCONDITIONS IN UPLANDFORESTS?

UKWAS requires owners and managers toprotect and enhance key plantation habitats andfeatures, such as old stands and deadwood, andmaintain populations of threatened conifer-dwelling species that use plantations (e.g. redsquirrel and capercaillie). Increasingly, theserequirements are being addressed through themixed bag of ‘continuous cover’ forestrymeasures (Mason et al. 1999). The politicalpressure to increase the amount of plantationarea managed under continuous coversilviculture is gathering strength. The Welshforestry strategy (Anon. 2002) states that in 20years time, 50% of state forest areas should bemanaged as continuous cover, using alternatives

FIGURE 1: Coniferous standing sales price index in Great Britain (data from Forestry Commission 2002). The realaverage price is converted to a ‘constant price’ (using 1996 prices) to remove the effects of inflation.

42


to clear-felling such as group selection,shelterwood and selection systems [seeMathews (1992) for definitions of thesesystems].

Recent research (Humphrey et al. 2002b)has emphasised the importance of creatingmature woodland conditions in plantations forsome aspects of biodiversity. The term maturewoodland includes areas of continuous coverwhere stands are retained beyond ‘normal clearfell’ economic maturity and stands wheremanagement intervention is minimal. This lattergroup are termed ‘natural reserves’ withinUKWAS and are intended to provide ‘old-growth’ conditions (sensu Oliver and Larson1996) comprising large veteran trees anddeadwood habitats. The UKWAS standardrequires that owners and managers set aside atleast 1% of the plantation forest area as old-growth natural reserves.

DEFINITION OF ‘OLDGROWTH’ STANDS AND THEIROCCURRENCE IN THE UK

Stands of ancient trees associated with woodpasture, parkland and undisturbed ancientrepresent the last fragments of primary oldgrowth forests in Britain (Peterken 1996).Although these forests have all been modifiedby man to some degree, significant examples ofold growth occur in places such as the ancientbroadleaved forests of the New Forest andWindsor Great Park in England, and in theCaledonian Scots pinewoods in the Scottish

Highlands (e.g. Glen Affric). However, the termold-growth can also apply to non-ancientwoodland which has developed the requisitestructural characteristics. A definition of oldgrowth as it might apply to UK spruce forests isshown in Box 1. This definition of old-growth isbased on current understanding of the term inScandinavia and the Pacific Northwest(Franklin et al. 2002) where semi-natural standsof Norway spruce and Sitka spruce(respectively) offer clues as to the possibledevelopment of such stands in the UK. Thereare considerable areas of spruce and firplantations in the UK that are over 150 years old(termed ‘Long-established plantations’) but fewwhere the trees are actually of that age or more.Many of these stands have been managed on alow intensity basis for centuries, so whilstmature woodland conditions have beenretained, large old trees have generally beenremoved. In contrast, some currentlyunmanaged 60-80 year-old spruce and fir standsare beginning to develop old growthcharacteristics such as structural variety anddeadwood. These stands are often on veryproductive sites where growth is rapid, andSitka spruce in particular can obtain heights of30 m or more and diameters in excess of 1 m inless that 80 years (Figure 2). These stands arealso often affected by windthrow which cancreate considerable volumes of standing andfallen deadwood (Humphrey et al. 2003a).

A database of notable planted conifer standsover 60 years old has been complied. Currentlyover 220 stands have been identified (Figure 3)and these provide a resource for further study.

Box 1: Definition of ‘old-growth’ stands as applied to spruce forests in the United Kingdom.

Areas of forest >150 years old with:- a significant proportion of trees > 80-100 cm diameter- a mix of trees of different ages and sizes including native broadleaves- variability in vertical and horizontal structure- occurrence of a shrub layer- large volumes of standing and fallen deadwood- veteran trees, and trees with deep crowns- continuity of habitat conditions over a long time period

43


VALUE OF OLD-GROWTHSPRUCE STANDS FORBIODIVERSITY

Survey work reported by Humphrey et al.(2003b), suggests that mature conifer stands canprovide important habitat for species normallyassociated with native woodland. Twenty-nineRed Databook species were recorded in uplandSitka spruce stands, a considerable number ofthese being fungal species normally associatedwith native pinewood. Mature stands had ahigher proportion of ‘woodland specialist’species than the younger stand stages. Thesespecialist species included bryophytes,woodland herbs, and carabid beetles. One ofthey features of these mature spruce stands isthe occurrence of decaying wood habitats(Figure 4). In comparison to the younger standstages, the over mature stands had much higherdeadwood volumes, comprising standingdeadwood (snags), stumps and fallen deadwood(logs).

Deadwood in these stands supported diversepopulations of wood saprotroph fungi, lichensand bryophytes.

Bryophyte species-richness was positivelyrelated to increasing diameter of logs and todecay class (Figure 5), with classes 4 and 5having significantly higher species numbersthan classes 1, 2 and 3. Other species alsobenefit from the retention of old conifer standssuch as red squirrels (Lurz et al. 2003) anduncommon woodland birds such as redstart orpied flycatcher (Currie and Elliot 1997).

LOCATION AND SIZE OF OLDGROWTH RESERVES

The current distribution of old conifer standshas to an extent been influenced bymanagement, often unplanned. Stands havesurvived near recreation facilitates to provideamenity benefits, or on sites with poor accesswhere extraction would not have been costeffective. However, one of the major abioticfactors affecting the current distribution of oldstands is windiness. In UK forestry, a system

Figure 2. Eighty year old Sitka spruce standdeveloping old growth features (deadwood, verticalstructure, large girth trees). (L. Poulsom)

Figure 3. Map showing location of old growth coniferstands in plantations

44


called DAMS (Detailed Aspect Method ofScoring - Quine and White 1993) is used tomeasure windiness and risk of windthrow.DAMS values are available for the whole of theUK at 50 m resolution and analysis of thecurrent distribution of old stands held within thedatabase (Figure 3) revealed that the majorityoccurred on sites with DAMS values of 16 orless. This suggests that above DAMS 16 there isa higher probability of catastrophic windthrowoccurring at a periodicity of less than 80 years,and hence the scope for developing stands withold and large trees may be less than in moresheltered locations.

Even if old-growth development wasrestricted to localities with DAMS scores of 16

or less, the potential area available is large asthe map of northern Britain illustrates (Figure6). Of course there are other restrictions on thedevelopment of old-growth which were notincluded in the preparation of the map (e.g.occurrence of urban areas, open water etc.) anda strategic approach to locating old-growthneeds to be developed at the regional andlandscape scales. Part of this strategic approachwould take into account the degree ofconnectivity between the intended old-growthstand and other ancient and long-establishedwoodland. Humphrey et al. (in press) found thatbryophyte species-richness in planted standswas positively correlated with the amount ofsemi-natural woodland within 1 km, withspecies such as woodland vascular plants,

Figure 4 Volumes ofdeadwood in differentstages of upland sprucestands. Pre-thicket standswere 8-10 years in age;mid-rotation 20-30 years,mature 40-50 years, andover-mature 60-80 years.From Humphrey et al.(2003a).

Figure 5. Mean numberof bryophyte speciesrecorded on differentsizes and decay stages oflogs. Decay stages are 1-intact to 5-fullydecomposed. FromHumphrey et al. (2003c).

45


beetles and mycorrhizal fungi showing similarrelationships with other measures ofconnectivity. The implications of these findingsare that old-growth natural reserves would bebest placed in already well-wooded landscapeswith plenty of linkages, such as hedgerows andriparian zones, between areas of woodland(Peterken 2003).

However, stands of old trees are likely to beretained for other reasons as well as biodiversityenhancement. Groves of large trees haveaesthetic value and provide excellentrecreational facilities. Increasingly there is anemphasis on retaining permanency of foreststructure in areas with high visual sensitivity,such as within popular view sheds and inlandscapes with high aesthetic value. Withinstate forestry in Scotland, England and Walesthere is a drive to create large (200+ ha) areas ofcontinuous cover in low wind risk zones. Theseareas could provide scope for developingmosaics of non-intervention old-growth andstands managed by low impact silviculture; thelow impact stands acting as ‘buffer’ for the old

growth stands in terms of maintaining aconstant microenvironment.

In contrast there will also be some scope forretaining smaller patches of old-growth reservesin higher wind risk areas where clear-fellingregimes are maintained. In Scandinavia thisapproach to management is termed the ‘greentree retention system’ (Vanha-Majammaa andJalonon 2001) and in North America the‘variable retention system’ (Franklin et al.2002). Various recommendations have beenmade as to the size and distribution of retainedpatches/clumps of trees on clear-fells. Onaverage, it is suggested that between 15-40% ofthe area could be retained, with patches in therange of 0.25-2 ha.

Taking both continuous cover areas andretentions on clear-fells together, one approachmight be to aim for a ‘reverse J’ size-classdistribution of old-growth patches across theforest landscape as a whole. There wouldtherefore be a few large (50 ha+) reserves forspecies requiring interior forest conditions and alarge number of small patches, providing‘habitat stepping stone’ type linkages betweenthe larger patches. This type of approach wouldmimic the landscape patterns generated bynatural disturbance in large forest landscapes(Wimberly 2002), and allow substantial parts ofthe landscape to remain free for other forestmanagement operations. A stylised example ofthis type of landscape structure is shown inFigure 7, in this case with a focus on creatingand connecting deadwood habitats within thelandscape

MANAGEMENT OF OLD-GROWTH RESERVES

The simplest approach to managing old-growthis simply to allow natural processes to generatevariability in stand structure and promote highervolumes of dead and dying trees. Evidence fromnear-natural Sitka spruce-western hemlockstands in South-east Alaska (Ott and Juday2002) and from Norway spruce-dominatedstands in western Scandinavia (Ohlson andTryterud 1999) suggest that both species of

Figure 6. Classification of northern Britain accordingto DAMS. Areas with DAMS score of 16 or less(green) are suitable for development of old-growthreserves

46


spruce can self-perpetuate in stands subjected tosmall-scale ‘gap-phase’ disturbance. Thesestands typically have naturally created gaps(usually by wind) of < 50 to 1000 m2 with andaverage of 5-12% of the forest area in ‘gap’’ atanyone time. Typically the size classdistribution of trees within these stands in‘reverse-J’ in shape with a few large dimensiontrees and many smaller ones. Dead and dyingtrees make up about 10-20% of total standvolume.

Work in British upland spruce standssuggests that the ecological behaviour of Sitkaspruce in this country is similar to that in south-east Alaska, with a minimum gap size of 150-200 m2 needed to establish natural regenerationin stands of 30-40 m in height (Quine 2001).However, Nixon and Worrell (1999) suggestthat gaps of 4000 m2 (equating to about 50%full sunlight) or more may be necessary to allowdevelopment of good timber trees. The generalconsensus is that Norway spruce is more shadetolerant than Sitka and will grow successfully in30% full light (equating to gap sizes of 400-1000 m2 in a 40-year-old stand). Given theclimatic characteristics of north-westernBritain, with its windy, oceanic conditions(Quine et al. 1999) it seems safe to assume thatboth Sitka and Norway spruce are capable ofself-perpetuation in upland conifer plantations

given protection of regeneration from excessivebrowsing (Nixon and Worrell 1999).

There is also no reason why some old-growth reserves could not be subject to lowintensity management. Evidence from Alaska(Deal and Tappeiner 2002) and from Norway(Storaunet et al. 2000) suggests that selectivelogging in spruce stands is not detrimental to themaintenance of old-growth structures andassociated species provided that the stand isgiven time to ‘’recover’ between interventions.An average time between interventions mightbe around 80 years. It is likely that these standswill become progressively more naturalised interms of composition as native broadleavestrees and shrubs colonise (Thompson et al.2003; Humphrey et al. 1998). However, there isalso a risk that shade tolerant species such aswestern hemlock may invade, creating muchmore shaded conditions and loss of understoreydiversity. Conversely the creation of large gaps(> 0.25 ha) may exacerbate weed problems, iftoo much light is let into the stand (Thompsonet al. 2003). As with all new ventures, a periodof trial and error (i.e. adaptive management)will be needed to seek the best approach tomanagement.

Finally, if it is intended to manage thesereserves in some way on a non-clearfell system,it may be necessary to identify potential stands

Figure 7. Stylised view ofa forest landscapeshowing distribution ofdifferent deadwoodhabitats (numbered 1-20).Reproduced fromHumphrey et al. (2002a).

47


at an early stage of development, so thatpreparatory management can be undertaken(Mason and Kerr 2001). For example, variabledensities of thinning could be used to transformregularly structured stands into stands with anirregular structure, allowing large trees withdeep crowns to develop to provide adequateseed for future regeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past century, the UK has pursued anactive policy of forest restoration. Although therationale for reforestation has evolvedconsiderably over the last few decades, and willcontinue to do so in line with the changingdemands of society, the fact remains that thevast majority of the wooded area in the UKcomprises relatively young forests of non-native conifer species. Despite considerableeffort to restore and expand native woodlandfragments (Humphrey et al. 2003d) substantialgains for biodiversity at the country level willonly be made if planted forests are included aspotential new habitat (Humphrey et al. 2002b).We should be in no doubt that the public wishmanagers to pursue this course of action. Thevast majority of people cite wildlifeconservation as the principal reason forcontinuing with public support for forestry inthe UK (Forestry Commission 2003). Thecreation of old-growth reserves in coniferplantations appears to be one of manypromising strategies for improving biodiversityvalue. However, these old stands are still veryyoung in biological terms and research intomanagement techniques is still in its infancy.Considerable monitoring work, linked to standmodelling will be needed to validatebiodiversity gains over the longer time period.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Liz Poulsom helped with the development ofthe old stands database and analysis of the windclimate. The work was funded by the ForestryCommission.

REFERENCES

Anon. 2003. Towards a strategy for Scotland'sbiodiversity: biodiversity matters. Strategyproposals. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

Anon. 2002. Woodlands for Wales: The NationalAssembly for Wales Strategy for Trees andWoodlands. Forestry Commission,Aberystwyth.

Anon. 2000a. Forests For Scotland: The ScottishForestry Strategy. Forestry Commission,Edinburgh.

Anon. 2000b. The UK Woodland Assurance Schemeguide to certification. UKWAS SteeringGroup, c/o Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Anon. 1999. England Forestry Strategy - A NewFocus For England's Woodlands. ForestryCommission, Cambridge.

Anon. 1998. The UK Forestry Standard: theGovernment's approach to sustainableforestry. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Anon. 1995. Biodiversity: The UK Steering Groupreport. Vol 2. Action Plans. London, HMSO.

Currie, F. and Elliott, G. 1997. Forests and Birds: aGuide to Managing Forests for Rare Birds.RSPB, Sandy.

Deal, R.L. and Tappeiner, J.C. 2002. The effects ofpartial cutting on stand structure and growth ofwestern hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in south-east Alaska. Forest Ecology and Management159, 173-186.

Ennos, R., Worrell, R., Arkle, P. and Malcolm, D.C.2000. Genetic variation and conservation ofBritish native trees and shrubs. ForestryCommission Technical Paper 31. ForestryCommission, Edinburgh.

Ferris, R. and Carter, C. 2000. Managing rides,roadsides and edge habitats in lowland forests.Forestry Commission Bulletin no 123. ForestCommission, Edinburgh.

Forestry Commission. 2003. UK public opinion offorestry 2003. Economic and Statistics Unit,Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Forestry Commission. 2002. Forestry Statistics2002. Economic and Statistics Unit, ForestryCommission, Edinburgh.

Forestry Commission. 2000. Forests and waterguidelines. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Forestry Commission. 1990. Forest natureconservation guidelines. London, HMSO.

48


Franklin, J.F., Spies, T.A., Van pelt, R., Carey, A.B.,Thornburgh, D.A., Berg, D.R., Lindenmayer,D.B., Harmon, M.E., Keeton, S., Shaw, D.C.,Bible, K. and Chen, J. 2002. Disturbances andstructural development of natural ecosystemswith silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology andManagement 155, 399-423.

Fuller, R.J. and Browne, S.J. 2003. Effects ofplantation structure and management on birds.In: J.W. Humphrey, R. Ferris and C.P. Quine(Eds) Biodiversity in Britain's Forests: resultsfrom the Forestry Commission's BiodiversityAssessment Project. Forestry Commission,Edinburgh in press.

Gill, R.M.A. 2000. The impact of deer on woodlandbiodiversity. Information Note 36. ForestryCommission.

Herbert, R., Samuel, C.J.A. and Patterson, G.S.1999. Using local stock for planting nativetrees and shrubs. Practice Note 8. ForestryCommission, Edinburgh.

Humphrey, J.W., Peace, A.J., Jukes, M.R. andPoulsom, E.L. (in press) Multiple-scale factorsaffecting the development of biodiversity in UKplantations. In: Proceedings of the Conferenceon History and forest biodiversity: challengesfor conservation, Leuven, Belgium 13-15January 2003.

Humphrey, J.W., Ferris, R., Peace, A.J. 2003a.Deadwood. In: J.W. Humphrey, R. Ferris andC.P. Quine (Eds) Biodiversity in Britain'sForests: results from the ForestryCommission's Biodiversity AssessmentProject. Forestry Commission, in press.

Humphrey, J.W., Ferris, R. and Quine, C.P. (Eds).2003b. Biodiversity in Britain's Forests: resultsfrom the Forestry Commission's BiodiversityAssessment Project. Forestry CommissionEdinburgh, in press.

Humphrey, J.W., Davey, S., Peace, A.J., Ferris R.and Harding, K. 2003c. Lichen and bryophytecommunities: the influence of site type, standstructure and deadwood. In: J.W. Humphrey,R. Ferris and C.P. Quine (Eds) Biodiversity inBritain's Forests: results from the ForestryCommission's Biodiversity AssessmentProject. Forestry Commission, in press.

Humphrey, J.W., Newton, A.C., Latham, J., Gray, H.,Kirby, K.J., Quine, C.P. and Poulsom, E. (Eds).2003d. The Restoration of WoodedLandscapes. Proceedings of the conference'Restoration of Wooded Landscapes' HeriotWatt University, 12-14 September 2000.Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Humphrey, J.W., Stevenson, A. and Swailes, J.2002a. Life in the deadwood: a guide to themanagement of deadwood in ForestryCommission forests. Forest Enterprise LivingForests Series. Forest Enterprise, Edinburgh.

Humphrey, J.W., Ferris, R., Jukes, M.R. and Peace,A.J. 2002b. The potential contribution ofconifer plantations to the UK BiodiversityAction Plan. Botanical Journal of Scotland 54,49-62.

Humphrey, J.W., Davey, S., Peace, A.J., Ferris, R.and Harding, K. 2002c. Lichen and bryophytecommunities of planted and semi-naturalforests in Britain: the influence of site type,stand structure and deadwood. BiologicalConservation 107, 165-180.

Humphrey, J.W., Holl, K. and Broome, A.C. (Eds).1998. Birch in spruce plantations:management for biodiversity. ForestryCommission Technical Paper 26. ForestryCommission, Edinburgh.

Kerr, G. 1999. The use of silvicultural systems toenhance the biological diversity of plantationforests in Britain. Forestry 72, 191-205.

Lurz, P.W.W., Geddes, N., Lloyd, A.J., Shirley,M.D.F., Rushton, S.P. and Burlton, B. 2003.Planning a red squirrel conservation area:using a spatially explicit population dynamicsmodel to predict the impact of felling andforest design plans. Forestry 76, 95-108.

Mathews, J.D. 1992. Silviculture systems, 2ndEdition. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Mason, W.L. and Kerr, G. 2001. Transforming even-aged conifer stands to continuous covermanagement. Forestry CommissionInformation Note 40. Forestry Commission,Edinburgh.

Mason, W.L., Kerr, G. and Simpson, J. 1999. What iscontinuous cover forestry? ForestryCommission Information Note 29. ForestryCommission, Edinburgh.

Mason, W.L., Hardie, D., Quelch, P., Ratcliffe, P.R.,Ross, I., Stevenson, A.W. and Soutar, R. 1999.‘Beyond the two solitudes’: the use of nativespecies in plantation forests. Scottish Forestry53, 135-144.

Mayle, B.A. 1999. Domestic stock grazing toenhance woodland biodiversity. ForestryCommission Information Note 28. ForestryCommission.

McGrady, M. J., McLeod, D. R. A., Petty, S. J.,Grant, J. G. and Bainbridge, I. P. 1997. Goldeneagles and forestry. Research InformationNote 292. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

49


Nixon, C.J. and Worrell, R. 1999. The potential forthe natural regeneration of conifers in Britain.Forestry Commission Bulletin 120. ForestryCommission, Edinburgh.

O' Brien E.A. 2003. Human values and theirimportance to the development of forestrypolicy in Britain: a literature review. Forestry76, 3-17.

Ohlson, M. and Tryterud, E. 1999. Long-term spruceforest continuity - a challenge for sustainableScandinavian forestry. Forest Ecology andManagement 124, 27-34.

Oliver, C.D. and Larson, B.C. 1990. Forest StandDynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ott, R.A. and Juday, G.P. 2002. Canopy gapcharacteristics and their implications formanagement in the temperate rainforests ofsoutheast Alaska. Forest Ecology andManagement 159, 271-291.

Patterson, G.S. and Anderson, A.R. 2000. Forestsand Peatland Habitats. Guideline Note 1.Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Pepper, H.W. and Patterson, G. 1998. Red squirrelconservation. Forest Practice Note 5. ForestryCommission.

Peterken, G.F. 1993. Developing forest habitatnetworks in Scotland. In: J.W. Humphrey, A.C.Newton, J. Latham, H. Gray, K.J. Kirby, C.P.Quine and E. Poulsom (eds). The Restorationof Wooded Landscapes. Proceedings of theconference 'Restoration of WoodedLandscapes' Heriot Watt University, 12-14September 2000. Forestry Commission,Edinburgh.

Peterken, G.F. 1996. Natural Woodland. Ecologyand Conservation in Northern TemperateRegions. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Peterken, G.F., Ausherman, D., Buchanan, M. andForman, R.T.T. 1992. Old-growth conservationwithin British upland conifer plantations.Forestry 65, 127-144.

Petty, S.J. 1998. Ecology and conservation ofraptors in forests. Forestry CommissionBulletin 118. The Stationery Office, London.

Quine, C.P., Humphrey, J.W. and Ferris. R. 2003.The future management of plantation forestsfor biodiversity. In: J.W. Humphrey, R. Ferrisand C.P. Quine (eds) Biodiversity in Britain'sForests: results from the ForestryCommission's Biodiversity AssessmentProject. Forestry Commission Technical Paper.

Quine, C.P. 2001. A preliminary survey ofregeneration of Sitka spruce in wind-formedgaps in British planted forests. Forest Ecologyand Management 151, 37-42.

Quine, C. P., Humphrey, J.W. and Ferris, R. 1999.Should the wind disturbance patterns observedin natural forests be mimicked in plantedforests in the British uplands? Forestry 72,337-358.

Quine, C.P. and White, I.M.S. 1993. Revisedwindiness scores for the windthrow hazardclassification: the revised scoring method.Forestry Commission Research InformationNote 230. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Rollinson, T. 2003. Introduction: the policy contextfor biodiversity. In: J.W. Humphrey, R. Ferrisand C.P. Quine (eds) Biodiversity in Britain'sForests: results from the ForestryCommission's Biodiversity AssessmentProject. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Spencer, J.W. 2002. Ancient Woodland on theForestry Commission Estate in England.Forest Enterprise, Edinburgh.

Storaunet, K.O., Rolstad, J. 2000. Reconstructing100-150 years of logging history in coastalspruce (Picea abies) with special conservationvalues in central Norway. ScandinavianJournal of Forest Research 15, 591-604.

Stevenson, A.W. 2000. Improving biodiversity inBritain's state forests. Irish Forestry 57, 27-37.

Thompson, R.N, Humphrey, J.W., Harmer, R. andFerris, R. 2003. Restoration of nativewoodland on ancient woodland sites. ForestryCommission Practice Guide. ForestryCommission, Edinburgh.

Vanha-Majamaa, I. and Jalonen, J. 2001. Green treeretention in Fennoscandian forestry.Scandinavian Journal of Forest ResearchSuppl. 3, 79-90.

Wimberly, M.C. 2001. Spatial simulation ofhistorical landscape patterns in coastal forestsof the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 32, 1316-1328.

50


51

Key habitat designation in plantation forests: a Scandinavian tool for biodiversity conservation

INTRODUCTION

The woodland key habitat (WKH) conceptemerged in Sweden during the early 1990s.Inspired by Landres et al. (1988) and Noss et al.(1990), the national Swedish Forest Agency(Skogsstyrelsen) initiated a project on thedevelopment of inventory methods for WKHdesignation in 1990, introducing theScandinavian term ‘nyckelbiotop’ (key habitat)for small biotopes valuable to the biologicaldiversity of woodlands (Nitare and Norén1992). During the period 1993-1998 a full-scalenational inventory of WKHs was completed inSweden at a cost of ! 10 million (Norén et al.1999). The experiences from this inventoryhave formed the basis for development ofnational inventory models in all otherScandinavian and Baltic countries.

Parallel with this process, DeMaynadier andHunter (1997) introduced the concept ofkeystone ecosystems to cover biotopes withgreater importance to the biological structureand function than average for the landscape andto sustain natural ecological processes andscarce resources. The first steps towardslocating such ‘hot spots’ were probably made inGreat Britain by Peterken (1974) and Rose(1976), using the occurence of certain vascularplants and lichens to identify forest biotopeswith a long history of moderate cuttings andespecially continuous forest cover. Theimportance of these habitats was presented toboth forest owners and the general publicthrough large information campaigns in thethree Scandinavian countries, under the name‘Rikare Skog’ (richer forests) in 1990-1995(Skogsstyrelsen 1990 (Sweden), Anonymous1991 (Norway), Hübertz and Kristiansen 1995(Denmark)).

The WKH designation process is anextension of those efforts – an attempt toelaborate more distinct inventory methods tolocate these areas in modern plantation forestry,and to prescribe sufficient managementmodifications to protect them. In all threeScandinavian countries active NGOs havecontributed significantly to the process, creatinga trilateral co-operation between governmentagencies, research institutions and the NGOsthemselves. This paper presents an overview ofthe WKH process.

THE WKH CONCEPT –DEFINITIONS ANDLIMITATIONS

The main philosophy behind the WKH conceptis that structures and (rare) species of specialimportance to the forest ecosystem are notevenly distributed, and that areas with highconcentrations of these features can be locatedthrough an inventory. In plantations establishedon old forest ground this is undoubtedly true inmany cases, but there are certain limitations tothe general rule. Gjerde (2002) demonstratedthat 20-25% of all red-listed species were foundon just 5% of the total forest area in Norwegianold-growth forest, and that this 5% of the areacontained 4-5 times more red-listed species thanthe surroundings. However, the historical forestmanagement and silvicultural practices in thelandscape determine to a large extent thepatchiness of potential WKHs, and the selectionof indicators to support their designation isencompassed by numerous methodicalproblems (e.g. Lindenmayer et al. 2002,Sætersdal 2002).

Key habitat designation in plantation forests:a Scandinavian tool for biodiversity

conservation

Flemming Rune14

14 Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Horsholm Kongevej 11, DK-2970

Horsholm, Denmark. Email: [email protected]

52


The Swedish WKH concept relies on thepresence of red-listed species, i.e. threatened,vulnerable, rare or care-demanding species. In1993 the Swedish Forest Agency defined theWKH concept as: ‘a quality conceptdetermining forest areas where red-listedspecies occur or are expected to occur’.Throughout the Swedish inventory thisdefininition was sustained, even though themain focus in the inventory in practice was puton various structural indicators.

Species are included in the red-list by agroup of specialists, based on empiricalknowledge of the occurence of each species.The red-listed status is not permanent, but isgenerally reappraised every 5-10 years, whenthe red-lists are revised. This may cause aproblem in time. An efficient protection of keyhabitats may change the red-listed status ofspecies, which were the very justification forthe designation of many key habitats.

Perhaps that paradox led other countries toelaborate different defintions of key habitats,not focusing distinctly on rare species, butrather on structures, processes and patternsexpected to be favourable to sustainbiodiversity. The Norwegian Association ofForesters (Norskog) suggested a definition ofkey habitats based more on the ecosystem thanon individual species: ‘biotopes with specialnature conditions or with special communitiesof great importance to species diversity. Theconcept is linked to the function of thebiotope/locality as an element in a largewoodland system’ (Aasaaren and Sverdrup-Thygeson 1994). The ‘keystone ecosystemapproach’ of DeMaynadier and Hunter (1997)was somehow forestalled by this definition.

In Denmark, the Forest and Nature Agency,under the Ministry of Environment and Energy,decided to use a management-orienteddefinition of key habitats, probably due to theintensive silviculture applied to almost any partof the Danish forest area: ‘areas important tobiodiversity conservation, because they containor could expectedly contain habitats, structuresor species which have difficulties in survivingconventional forestry and thus require special

management prescriptions’ (Rune 2000). Theaim of key habitat designation in Denmark isexplicitly stated as ‘to elaborate a tool that theforest owner himself can benefit from’ insustainable and multiple-use forestmanagement. The Swedish, Norwegian andDanish definitions represent the range of keyhabitat concepts, and Finland and the threeBaltic countries have used definitions that aremere composites of these.

The WKH definitions – no matter if theyfocus on species, ecosystems or managementprescriptions – are not accurate andincontrovertible. In Denmark, the Forest andNature Agency has tried to establish a practicewhere at least three certain categories ofimportant structures should be present in a keyhabitat, but in any case the decision to designatea key habitat must rely on local or regionalbiological experience. This opens up thepossibility of designating any percentage of theforest area as key habitat, but in practicebetween 1% and 3.5% of the total forest area

"A gurgling watercourse through a patch of semi-natural forest is an obvious woodland key habitat.The stream is fringed by mosses, rare ferns andgroups of ramson (Allium ursinum).

Photo: F. Rune, Döndalen (Bornholm), Denmark.

53


has been designated in the Scandinavianinventories. When the methodology iselaborated and tested in each country or region,it is quite easy to agree on a general way ofusing it, leaving room for specific biologicalarguments at any forest site in question.

WKH DESIGNATIONMETHODOLOGY

The WKH designation methodology is veryuniform in the seven countries that have carriedout WKH inventories so far. The basicmethodology is based on the Swedish WKHdesignation model, and it is nationally adaptedonly as regards selected important structuresand species. The method is designed for use ina managed and fragmented forest landscape. Inlarge areas of natural forests, specific surveymethods have had to be designed, and in newlyafforested areas on agricultural land it may takeseveral decades before key habitats develop – orthe development of potential key habitats maybe planned from the very start of theafforestation.

The WKH surveyors have usually receivedan education in forestry or biology, and,especially in Denmark, participation by thelocal forest administration is encouraged. Allsurveyors, irrespective of their education andbackground, receive special training inconservation biology, in the recognition of

special valuable habitats, and in the knowledgeof indicator species. In Sweden more than 150surveyors were trained in the years 1993-1998and went through repeated ‘calibration courses’to ensure maximum consistency in their fieldwork and designation practice (Norén et al.1999). Some degree of subjectivity isunavoidable, but as far as the WKH designationis not linked directly to any legal limitations infuture forest management, the incongruity hasbeen acceptable.

The total inventory of WKHs falls into threephases: 1) preparatory work, 2) field survey, and3) data processing.

The preparatory work consists of collectingand compiling information from a large varietyof sources, written or verbal. Depending on theage of forest management in the area, writtensources should include: old and new forestmanagement plans, forest maps, historicalmaps, soil maps, aerial photographs, andbotanical or zoological surveys or records ofany kind. The primary verbal sources are: forestowners, employees, neighbours, frequent forestguests, and knowledgeable NGOs. All theinformation is recorded, and potential WKHsare marked on detailed working maps to be usedduring the field survey. In the Danish WKHdesignation model the field work focusesalmost exclusively on these ‘nominated’ areas,due to the very detailed knowledge about manyforest areas, with several generations of forest

#Large diameter dead wood ofindigeneous tree species left fornatural decay is a rare sight in themanaged forests of WesternEurope. It is considered animportant key element for woodlandkey habitat designation by allNordic and Baltic countries.

Photo: F. Rune, Strödam (Hilleröd), Denmark.

54


management plans and matching maps at scale1:10,000 of all stands and surroundingtopography.

The field survey has several objectives: 1) toverify the information collected during thepreparatory phase, 2) to carry out an extensivesurvey of the rest of the forest, 3) to designate,delimit and describe WKHs, and 4) to considerall necessary management prescriptions in orderto conserve the special values of the WKHs. Asa general rule, all locations found in thepreparatory phase must be visited, and normallythe route through the forest is planned to ensurethe most efficient survey of the forest betweenthese locations. An inventory form is completedfor all locations and they are categorised asWKHs or not in the field. In some countries,e.g. Sweden, a category of less importanthabitats is used, ‘objects with certain naturevalues’.

The most important tools in the field surveyare designated structures expected to be ofimportance for biodiversity, key elements, andselected indicator species, signal species,indicating that certain favourable ecologicalconditions exist, or – as in Sweden – indicatingthat red-listed species are present or could bepresent. Normally 50-70 key elements aredesignated in the field work manuals, e.g.within the categories very large trees, old ordying trees, dead wood, rare stands, hedges withshrubs and trees with berries, breedinglocalities, special terrain structures, water, etc.There are large overlaps in key elementsbetween the seven countries involved.

Signal species include vascular plants,mosses, lichens as well as fungi. In Swedenclose to 300 species have been selected as signalspecies in one or another part of the country.About 75% of these species are not vascularplants. There are large differences in signalspecies between different regions of Sweden(covering almost 14 degrees latitude), and evenmore between the involved countries. InDenmark only about 70 signal species (orgroups or species) are included in the field workmanual due to the much smaller size of thecountry (covering not much more than 3

degrees latitude). Only a few of the signalspecies are red-listed. Due to their scatteredoccurence they seem to be of limited use inpointing out biologically diverse areas. Allsignal species are fairly common and some arefound in multitude when the conditions areright.

The signal species were not selected in anyscientific way, but only from the experience ofa forum of field specialists. Generally, the signalspecies indicate rare ecological conditions, e.g.in Denmark with its intensive silviculture: treespecies continuity on the same area, undrainedwetland areas, undisturbed forst soil etc.

The lack of scientific consistency in theselection of signal species may seemcontroversial, but recent attempts at numericalselection of such indicators (old-growthspecies), even when based on a very largenumber of test plots in various forest types,were not satisfactory (e.g. Lawesson et al.1998). Statistically selected indicator speciesseem to be of limited geographical use(Lindenmayer et al. 2002, Sætersdal 2002).

The third and final phase of the total WKHinventory is the processing of field data. Theinformation is evaluated and the data are madeavailable to the forest managers and are, asmuch as possible, integrated in digital maps,management plans and working schedules. Allinformation should be ready for use in the dailymanagement operations and when managementplans and monitoring programmes are beingprepared or revised.

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATIONAND FUNDING IN THE NORDICAND BALTIC COUNTRIES

The following status of the Nordic andBaltic implementation of WKH inventories issummarised from a four-day conference inBialowieza Forest, Poland, October 2002:

Sweden: A WKH pilot project was initiated in1990, and during the years 1993-1998 a statefinanced full-scale inventory of private forests

55


<5,000 ha was completed, in total covering 11.7million ha at a cost of about !10 million.Continued inventories are being carried outfrom 2001 to 2003, at a cost of additional !3.2million. Forests greater than 5,000 ha weresurveyed at the expence of the forest owner ona voluntary basis. A general interest incertification has been the driving force,prompting most forest owners to carry out theirWKH inventory before 2000. Financialcompensation to forest owners for managementrestictions has only been paid for non-intervention WKHs, in total 2,600 areas (7,500ha). Now, about 141,000 ha of WKHs (46,000sites) have been designated, covering 1.2% ofthe total forest area. Preliminary results showthat the total number of WKHs in Sweden mayexceed 60,000. Only a few percent of the forestarea remain to be surveyed.

Finland: A full-scale WKH inventory wasinitiated in the state forests in 1995, covering6.4 million ha at a cost of !23 million. About168,000 ha of ‘valuable habitats’ weredesignated. The key habitat terminology inFinland is not quite comparable to the rest ofScandinavia, but reflects nevertheless the sameprinciples. In 1996-1997 a WKH pilot projectwas completed for the private forests, covering1.1 million ha, and this was followed by a full-scale inventory of 10 million ha, at a cost of!13.4 million. Another 5 million ha wereextensively surveyed through the forestmanagement planning. Until 2003, 38,000 ha of‘habitats of special importance’ and 41,000 haof ‘other valuable habitats’ (60,000 sites) havebeen designated. The practical WKH inventoryin the private forests was financed by theMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry, and it wassupervised by the Finnish ForestryDevelopment Centre, Tapio. Almost all forestareas in Finland will have been surveyed by theend of 2003.

Norway: Of the total forest area in Norway,only about 50% is used for production. Anation-wide research project, Environmentalmonitoring in forests, was carried out by theNorwegian Institute of Forest Research duringthe period 1997-2001 at a cost of close to !3

million, providing important information on thepotential of WKH designation in Norway. Afull-scale WKH inventory was initiated in 2001,and about 1 million ha were surveyed during thefirst year. The state finances about 60% of theinventory costs, and pays full compensation toprivate forest owners for non-interventionWKHs in production forests.

Denmark: A WKH pilot project was initiated in1998 on 2,135 ha of private or other non-stateowned forest. In early 2000 a state subsidyscheme was introduced for private forestowners, but during the following three yearsonly 4,820 ha forests were surveyed voluntarilyunder the subsidy scheme, or about 1.5% of thetotal private forest area. The state covers 50-100% of the inventory expenses, and runs aparallel compensation scheme for non-intervention areas in production forests. In thestate forests (29% of the total forest area) noWKH inventories have been initiated yet, but anumber of habitats (e.g. all wetlandsirrespective or their size) are statutoryprotected.

Latvia: A WKH pilot project was initiated in1998 and was immediately followed by a full-scale inventory of all state forests (1.43 millionha) during the period 1999-2002. More than 120surveyors were trained under Swedishsupervision, and 18,681 WKHs weredesignated, covering 34,367 ha or 2.4% of thetotal state owned forest area. No subsidyschemes for inventories or financialcompensation for non-intervention WKHs inprivate forests were introduced, andconsequently WKHs have only been designatedin state forests so far.

Estonia: A WKH pilot project was initiated in1999, covering 167,511 ha, and it was followedby a full-scale inventory of the remainingalmost 2 million ha during the period 2000-2003. Twenty-two surveyors were trained underSwedish supervision, and until 2001 15,330 haof WKHs were designated, or close to 2% of thesurveyed area. All inventories are fully paid bythe state, and there is full compensation toprivate forest owners for non-interventionWKHs. By the end of 2001, 105 contracts of

56


non-intervention WKHs were signed betweenthe state and private forest owners.

Lithuania: A WKH pilot project was completedin 2001-2002, covering 237,000 ha, andfollowed by a full-scale inventory in the period2002-2005. Twenty-five surveyors were trainedunder Swedish supervision. In the pilot project6,346 ha of WKHs and potential WKHs weredesignated, corresponding to about 3.5% of thesurveyed forest area. The average size of WKHsand potential WKHs in the pilot project was3.48 ha. There will be full compensation toprivate forest owners for non-interventionWKHs, but at the end of 2002 no contracts ofprotection had been signed.

MANAGEMENTCONSEQUENCES ANDCONCLUSION

Many resources have been allocated to WKHdesignation in the Nordic and Baltic countriessince 1990, with Sweden and Finland in thelead. Consequently these two countries areadvanced with certification of forests products,representing more than 70% (almost 50 millionha) of the total forest area in the Nordic andBaltic region. The Baltic countries haveinitiated and partly completed their full-scaleWKH inventories under Swedish supervision,while Norway and Denmark have still onlysurveyed less than 10% of their forest areas forWKHs.

WKH designation seems to be a rational andpractical tool for forest management to supportbiodiversity protection in plantation forestry,despite all local and national inconsistenciesand lack of scientific basis for the selection ofindicator species. Generally, the inventoriesonly cover a fraction of the total forest area, andlarge nature values will inevitable be missedduring the survey. A forest may contain a widevariety of natural values which will not beregistered if their habitats do not qualify as keyhabitats. Biological corridors, often not WKHs,may be crucial for the dispersal and long-termsurvival of many species in the forest, and thepatchiness of nature values is completely

disregarded in the WKH designation process.The use of indicators in the WKH surveys is notscientifically based, and a certain amount ofsubjectivity from each field worker is tolerated.

Nevertheless, it is believed that the 1-3.5 %of the forest area designated as WKHs with thismethodology accommodates a large number oforganisms that cannot survive conventionalforestry. The WKH designation process givesthe forest manager an option of practising activebiodiversity conservation with managementrestrictions on only a small fraction of the totalforest area.

A large element of volunteering isincorporated in the WKH philosophy. Basically,designation of WKHs does not imply non-intervention. In Sweden only about 5% of thetotal WKH area were appointed non-intervention areas with full economiccompensation from the state. Most often thesilvicultural system is continued even in theWKHs, possibly modified or restricted to acertain degree, and always ultimately decidedand put into practice by the forest ownerhimself.

In the years to come, WKH designation mayby introduced to countries other thanScandinavia and the Baltic States, and graduallybecome a natural part of modern forestmanagement there. The WKH philosophy,however, requires support from severalstakeholders to be implemented successfully ina country, including first of all the forestauthorities and the forest owners themselves.

REFERENCES

Aasaaren, Ø. and Tygeson, A.-S. 1994.Nøkkelbiotoper i skogen. BrosjyreNORSKOG, Norway.

Anonymous. 1991. Rikere skog. NorgesSkogeierforbund. Landbruksforlaget, Oslo,Norway.

DeMaynadier, P. and Hunter, M. J. 1997. The role ofkeystone ecosystems in landscapes. In: Boyce,M.S. and Haney, A. (eds). Ecosystemsmanagement. Applications for suitable forestan wildlife resources. Yale University Press,New Haven, USA.

57


Gjerde, I. 2002. Romlig fordeling av rødistearter iskog [Spatial distribution of red-listed speciesin woodlands]. In: Gjerde, I. and Baumann, C.(eds). Miljøregistrering i skog. Aktuelt fraskogforskningen (Norway) 8/02:4-6.

Hübertz, H. and Kristiansen, L. 1995. Rigere skov iDanmark. G. E. C. Gads Forlag og Miljø - ogEnergiministeriet, København, Denmark.

Landres, P. B., Verner, J. and Thomas, J. W. 1988.Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species:a critique. Conservation Biology 2: 316-328.

Lawesson, J. E., Blust, G. de, Grashof, C., Firbank,L., Honnay, O., Hermy, M., Hobitz, P. andJensen, L. M. 1998. Species diversity and area-relationships in Danish beech forests. ForestEcology and Management 106: 235-245.

Lindenmayer, D. B., Manning, A. D., Smith, P. L.,Possingham, H. P., Fischer, J., Oliver, I. andMcCarthy, M. A. 2002. The focal-speciesapproach and landscape restoration: a critique.Conservation Biology 16: 338-345.

Nitare, J. and Norén, M. 1992. Nyckelbiotoperkartlägges i nytt prosjekt vid skogsstyrelsen[Key habitats are being mapped in a newproject by the Forest Agency]. Svensk BotaniskTidskrift 86: 219-226.

Norén, M., Sturesson, E., Ljungkvist, H. and Wallin,B. 1999. Nyckelbiotopsinventeringen 1993-1998. Slutrapport. [The key habitat inventory1993-1998. End report]. Skogsstyrelsen,Jönköping, Sweden, 35 pp.

Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoringbiodiversity: a hiererchical approach.Conservation Biology 4: 355-364.

Peterken, G. F. 1974. A method for assessingwoodland flora for conservation usingindicator species. Biological Conservation 6:239-245.

Rose, F. 1976. Lichenological indicators of age andenvironmental continuity in woodlands.Systematics Association of the British LichenSociety, London.

Rune, F. 2000. God og flersidig skovdrift.Vejledning. Tillæg om registrering afnøglebiotoper. [Subsidies for diversified forestmanagement. Addendum on WKHinventories]. Danish Forest and NatureAgency, 20 pp. (anonymous).

Skogsstyrelsen. 1990. Rikare skog. Skogsstyrelsen,Jönköping, Sweden.

Sætersdal, M. 2002. Furutsetninger for bruk avindikatorarter for artsrikhet [Preconditions for

the use of species as indicators of speciesrichness]. In: Gjerde, I. and Baumann, C. (eds).Miljøregistrering i skog. Aktuelt fraskogforskningen (Norway) 8/02: 24-26.

58


59

Biodiversity assessment in European forests within the BioAssess project

Biodiversity assessment in European forestswithin the BioAssess project

Allan Watt12

12 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Hill of Brathens, Glassel, Banchory, Aberdeenshire AB31 4BW, Scotland, UK. Email: [email protected]

60


61


62


63


64


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


73


74


Documents

Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in plantation ... · Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement in plantation forests Proceedings of the COFORD seminar , 24 October 2002,