Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Aims
1.2 Need for improved management of plant communities
1.3 The Important Plant Area concept
2. Caledonian pinewoods and their current management
2.1 Defining Caledonian pinewoods
2.2 Current management of Caledonian pinewoods in relation to their plants and fungi
3. Guiding principles for woodland management
4. Landscape-scale planning
5. Site (woodland) scale management
5.1 Assessing plant communities and drawing up management prescriptions
5.2 Management prescriptions
1. Planning issues
2. Grazing control
3. Manipulating the woodland canopy to improve conditions for plants and fungi
4. Woodland shrubs and scrub
5. Deadwood
6. Timber harvesting
7. Control of invasive exotic species
8. Movement of woodland plants into species poor isolated woodland
5.3 Integration of management prescriptions
5.4 Monitoring
5.5 Support via Scottish Government grant schemes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank: Sandy Coppins, Gordon Rothero, Liz Holden, John Douglass and
Richard Thompson (Forest Enterprise) for their input and advice.
Plantlife Scotland wishes to acknowledge the financial contribution of Scottish Natural
Heritage and Forestry Commission Scotland to this report.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Aims
This report describes a conservation management framework for Caledonian pinewoods based
on the Important Plant Area (IPA) concept (www.plantlife-ipa.org/reports.asp). The
framework is intended to deliver:
1. Guidance on how to assess the conservation value of woodland plants and fungi.
2. Outline management guidance for woodland plants and fungi at both local (site) and
catchment (habitat network) scales.
3. A means of assisting conservation planning by prioritising the locations where
management is required based on habitat network principles.
The long term aim is to increase habitat and species resilience through improved habitat
quality and the formation and expansion of habitat networks. The need for this work arises
because:
y There is relatively little management guidance aimed specifically at woodland plants
and fungi, compared with that available for trees, birds, mammals and some
invertebrates.
y There is a need to strengthen landscape scale and habitat network approaches in
conservation management to augment current site based approaches.
y There is a need for conservation organisations to be able to prioritise scarce resources
in the face of effectively unlimited demands.
The approach described here is designed to dovetail with other available guidance - notably
the Forestry Commission Forest Habitat Network approach (e.g. Moseley and Ray 2007). It is
intended to be suitable for all organisations involved in woodland conservation and
management.
Caledonian pinewoods is one of six priority habitats under Plantlife Scotland’s ‘Back From the
Brink’ programme. This report will guide conservation activities undertaken by Plantlife
Scotland within the Cairngorms, Black Wood of Rannoch, Strathglass and parts of the West
Coast Important Plant Areas under Plantlife Scotland’s Back From the Brink programme.
1.2 Need for improved management of plant communities
Most woodland plans, especially those outwith designated areas, have limited coverage of
woodland plants and fungi and little or no consideration of management that might enhance
plant communities (other than trees). Management specifically aimed at safeguarding and
enhancing woodland plants and fungi in Scotland has developed in the last five years
(Coultard and Scott 2001, Rothero 2008, Worrell and Dunlop 2003, Armstrong and Black 2010,
Coppins and Coppins 2006, Crawford 2009). However, with a few notable exceptions, there is
currently little guidance aimed at practitioners (owners, agents, surveyors) that would help in
preparing the vegetation sections of woodland plans. This is clearly a deficiency as woodland
plans are the main vehicle for delivering improved management and are the means by which
owners can access government grants to support conservation work.
1.3 The Important Plant Area concept
In 2007, Plantlife launched a list of 150 Important Plant Areas (IPAs) across the UK (see
www.plantlife-ipa.org/reports.asp). IPAs are areas of great botanical importance for
threatened species, habitats and plant diversity, and their identification and management
meets Target 5 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (JNCC, Plantlife and Royal
Botanic Gardens Kew 2004). In the UK, IPAs have been identified where there are exceptional
sites holding rare and diverse communities of flowering plants, bryophytes, lichens,
stoneworts and algae. Important Fungus Areas (IFAs) have also been developed (see
http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/NaturallyScottish/fungi/areas.asp). However, work on
developing management for IFAs is slower than for IPAs and discussions in this document refer
to IPAs only. Areas qualify if they meet one or more of these internationally agreed criteria
(Anderson 2002):
1. they hold significant populations of one or more species that are of global or
European conservation concern;
2. they have an exceptionally rich flora in a European context in relation to its
biogeographic zone;
3. they are outstanding example of a habitat type of global or European plant
conservation and botanical importance.
IPAs can contain a wide range of habitats and species and they are rarely identified on the
presence of one type of plant or habitat. IPA boundaries are identified using a two stage
process that maps:
•
•
‘core areas’ of habitat where the qualifying features are present. This can correlate
with designated sites (e.g. SSSIs), but also includes all other ecologically suitable
areas. They may consist of a single area or several unconnected areas comprising a
series of plant sites.
‘zones of opportunity’, into which the key species or habitats could expand, if the
current land use is appropriate and correct habitat management is carried out. These
are shown as a series of 1 km buffer zones around the core areas filtered using key
predictive environmental variables to identify areas with the greatest potential for
expansion.
The IPA approach can be used for the prioritising conservation work. Firstly sites within IPAs
are likely to be of higher priority than similar sites not in IPAs, and the most important
habitats in the IPAs are identified. Secondly the most important locations and broad types of
conservation work required are identified during the IPA mapping process. Priorities for
conservation work would usually follow the sequence:
1. improving the habitat condition of the core areas.
2. expanding core areas into the zones of opportunity to form larger more robust areas.
3. linking areas of habitat into larger networks usually by improving the habitat condition
of areas of ground between habitat patches (in both core areas and zones of
opportunity).
Such work to improve habitat networks provides the potential for increasing resilience of
plant communities and habitats to a range of impacts, including the effects of climate
change.
IPAs and Forest Habitat Networks
The process of developing IPAs closely mirrors Forest Habitat Networks
(www.forestresearch.gov.uk) meaning the two approaches are compatible. This is important
because many of the woodland managers involved with Caledonian pinewoods will be familiar
with the Forest Habitat Network approach.
Figure 1: Important Plant Areas nominated for pinewood habitat, excluding parts of the West
Coast IPA.
IPAs with pine woodland habitat
There are 42 IPAs in Scotland, of which the following four IPAs contain Caledonian pine
woodland habitat: Cairngorms, Black Wood of Rannoch, Strathglass and the West Coast IPA.
Table 1: IPAs with pinewood as a nominated feature:
IPA name
Core sites
(where
identified)
Location Criterion A
species
present
Abernethy
Ballochbuie
Mar Forest
Rothiemurchus
Black Wood of
Rannoch
NJ0018
NO1989
NO0596
NH9310
NN5655
Glen Affric
Pollan
Bhuildhe
Guisachan
Strathfarrar
NH2525
NH1831
Loch Maree
complex
Coulin
NG9762
Cairngorms
Black
Wood of
Rannoch
Strathglass
complex
West Coast
IPA
Buxbaumia
viridis
None
None
Criterion B
diversity index
habitat
Coniferous
Woodland:
native pinewood
Criterion C
habitat type
Caledonian
forest
Coniferous
Woodland:
native pinewood
Coniferous
Woodland:
native pinewood
Caledonian
forest
Coniferous
Woodland:
native pinewood
Caledonian
forest
Caledonian
forest
NH2622
NH2337
None
NG0056
Core Areas and Zones of Opportunity
Details of the mapping procedure are given in Fraser and Winterbottom 2008. This procedure
is being applied to each IPA as funding allows. Maps are available from Plantlife once
complete. IPA factsheets give summary information on each area and are available at
www.plantlife-ipa.org/reports.asp
2. Pinewoods and their current management
2.1 Defining pinewoods
Pinewoods occur in the relatively ‘boreal’ climatic conditions in the central and eastern
Highlands of Scotland, typically on freely draining, nutrient poor soils, but also extend locally
into the highly oceanic areas of western Scotland. Pinewoods in Scotland have certain
affinities with true boreal forest in northern Europe and Russia, but the climate is far more
oceanic, and the term ‘sub-boreal’ has been deployed to describe forest in these types of
condition (Worrell 1996). The fact that Scottish pinewoods represent an extreme oceanic
variant of the boreal forest gives them high conservation importance both nationally and
internationally. They display strong gradients of increasing oceanicity towards the west of
Scotland, which is reflected in the vegetation communities. Scottish pinewoods are listed on
the European Habitats Directive as ‘Caledonian Forest’(see www.jncc.gov.uk).
For the purpose of this report all pine and pine-birch woodland of natural origin within the
Cairngorm, Black Wood of Rannoch, Strathglass and parts of the West Coast Important Plant
Areas is to be considered to be ‘Caledonian pine woodland’ (see figure 1) and the
management approaches detailed in the report are also relevant to many older pine woods of
planted origin.
The defining botanical characteristics of Caledonian pinewoods centre on:
• the relatively small number of vascular plant species associated with them - the
National Vegetation Classification (Rodwell 1992) lists only 31 species.
• the near constant presence of certain ericaceous species.
• the occurrence of a small number of herb species that are rare in the UK, typically with
a boreal or circumpolar distribution (i.e. twinflower, wintergreens, orchids such as
Goodyera repens).
• a characteristic lichen flora extending to 434 epiphytic lichen taxa, 18 of which are, in
Britain, confined to native pinewoods, including broadleaf trees and especially
deadwood (Coppins and Coppins 2006).
• a diverse and characteristic array of saproxylic and mycorrhizal fungi, some of which
are rare and threatened (Newton et al 2002) including tooth fungus.
• A diverse bryophyte flora that includes, some rare and protected species, primarily
associated with broadleaf trees, as well as species on dead wood and on rock habitats
within woodland.
As a result of the climatic conditions and lithology, Caledonian pinewoods acquire other
characteristics:
- the forest floor habitat is generally nutrient poor and often relatively dry, with moisture
being retained by the presence of the bryophyte layer
- disturbance patterns are driven by both fire and wind and include large scale
disturbance as well as smaller gap formation
- they can occupy a large percentage of sites on acid lithologies giving rise to extensive
forests of one woodland type rarely seen elsewhere in the UK
- they extend both to high altitudes and as bog woodland onto deep peats, leading to
unusual and highly valuable habitats.
Figure 4: Global locations of boreal forest biome after Weigand (see Worrell 1996).
Woodland communities
Caledonian pinewoods comprise mainly W18 pine woodland, but are often also associated
with areas of birch (W11, W17 or W4) and juniper scrub (W19). In the west of Scotland pine
woodland may intergrade with oak-birch woodland communities (W11 and W17) and these
western pinewood types have distinctive plant communities (Rodwell 1992). The Cairngorms
IPA also contains the UK’s most extensive aspen woodlands some of which occur in close
association with pinewoods and have a distinctive lichen, bryophyte and fungus flora (Parrott
and MacKenzie 2008).
Pinewoods have received vastly more conservation attention over the decades than any other
woodland type in Scotland, largely because of their status as the UK’s only type of native
coniferous forest. Only more recently has attention focused on associated habitats such as
juniper scrub (Long and Williams 2007), pine bog woodland (Legg et al 2003), aspen woodland
(Worrell 1995a, Parrott and MacKenzie 2008).
The western pinewoods (such as Barrisdale and Coulin), have a markedly different
composition of lower plants than those of Deeside and Speyside in the east, which experience
a lower rainfall and greater temperature fluctuations throughout the year. The forests of
central areas, including Glen Affric and Strathfarrar, fall somewhere in between and
generally have the richest and most varied floras (see Coppins & Coppins 2002).
2.2 Current management of Caledonian pinewoods in relation to their plants and fungi
Most native pinewoods are now managed with conservation as a primary or sole objective.
Some retain deer habitat as an important use and others have an element of timber
production, both of which can influence the conservation of plants and fungi. Woodland
management has been strongly focused on restoration and expansion of tree cover by natural
regeneration following the reduction of deer browsing pressure. In recent years the effects,
both positive and negative, of reduced grazing pressure on ground flora have been
recognised. Reduction of grazing by deer and stock to encourage natural regeneration of tree
species leads to shifts in ground flora composition in favour of ling and heather at the
expense of grasses and blueberry, to an increase in the proportion of older, taller plants,
particularly heather and to a loss of habitat for bryophytes, lichens and fungi.
Complete cessation of grazing and the consequent rank growth of ericaceous shrubs or coarse
grasses also favours the larger, more competitive and thus more common bryophytes, which
tends to reduce niche diversity. The most obvious habitats lost are those of low rocks and
logs on the woodland floor. These are soon engulfed and covered by a few large
pleurocarpous mosses to the exclusion of smaller more demanding species. Where complete
removal of grazing leads to thicket regeneration, such as the dense rowan at Black Wood of
Rannoch for example, this can result in significant loss of lichen communities on existing trees
and deadwood. An increase in the height of the ground vegetation is also thought to reduce
the number of fruit bodies of mycorrhizal fungi. By contrast, other functional groups,
including the litter and wood rotting species, may benefit from the additional humidity
provided by the taller and denser ground vegetation.
Vegetation management to increase the abundance of blaeberry and cowberry by decreasing
the stocking of pine, deploying fire and cattle grazing and by controlling deer numbers has
been developed at Abernethy (e.g. Amphlett et al 2006, Parlane et al 2006). Considerable
effort has gone into restoring special habitats associated with pine woods, especially wooded
bogs (Legg et al 2003) and montane scrub. Some work has been initiated on the management
requirements of specific species, notably twinflower (Worrell and Dunlop 2003) and juniper
(Long and Williams 2007); and other pinewood herbs have been the subject of targeted survey
(www.bsbi.org.uk/tpp.html ) and development of species dossiers. Some trials involving
translocating pinewood specialist species to new sites has been carried out either
between/within native pinewoods (Broome and Long in prep;
http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/woodland_ground_flora.html). However deliberate
management to improve plant communities, other than by reduction of grazing, is very
uncommon. Plantlife has developed management guidance for pinewood herbs (Scott 2011).
Efforts to reinstate more natural tree age structures and increase the quantities of deadwood
(especially in woods formerly managed for timber) improves the habitat for lichens,
byrophytes and fungi that use deadwood and old trees as substrate. Lying deadwood has a
more diverse bryophyte flora than living trees or standing deadwood and any increase in the
volume of this niche habitat will be beneficial. Lichens, on the other hand, are better
adapted to standing deadwood (the so-called ‘bones’), which are known to remain standing
for upwards of 100 years, with the real specialist pinewood species found on the wood of
trunks and branches (‘snags’). Where fallen deadwood occurs, if the root-plate and branches
keep the trunk lifted above the ground so that air circulates around the trunk, then this
creates a suitable specialist niche for some critical lichens. Fungi of all functional modes
benefit from a more natural tree age structure enabling both above and below ground
systems to develop. Parmasto (2001) estimates that there are five times more rare fungi in
old growth woodlands in Estonia than in managed woodland there. Whilst awareness of the
importance of deadwood has increased, many pinewoods in Scotland still have far lower
quantities of deadwood, and particularly large sized deadwood, than old growth woodlands
found in parts of mainland Europe.
Pine plantations managed for timber can be of high conservation value for vascular plants and
fungi (eg. Worrell and Dunlop 2003 and Humphrey at al 2000). The prevailing approach in
terms of integrating management for timber with conservation has been to minimise the
impacts of forestry practices (Mason et al 2004), especially to minimise ground disturbance.
Whilst this is a good general approach to adopt, it is plausible that some pinewood herb
species can benefit from disturbance, especially trailing plants such as twinflower which can
be transported to new establishment sites as plant fragments during disturbance episodes,
such as wintering of stock or working of the woods by machinery (Long and Broome in prep).
Evidence for this also comes from the observation that some woods heavily worked in the past
support good populations of pinewood specialist herbs (Worrell and Dunlop 2003).
Grazing of farm stock in native pinewoods is now uncommon and browsing pressure is largely
confined to deer. However there is increasing evidence that controlled cattle grazing is
beneficial for woodland plants and other aspects of biodiversity.
Collectively, current guidance adopts the following general positions:
• Conditions for most vascular woodland plants can be improved by managing grazing by
deer, to ensure control of ling, to maximise blueberry and to create small vacant niches
for seedling establishment (Scott 2011).
• That current lichen, fungi and bryophyte interest of pinewoods is high and needs to be
protected from unwise management intervention (see Shaw & Thompson 2006, Holden
2008, Rothero 2008)
• Careful management of the woodland canopy can increase lichen diversity, especially in
the longer term eg. by producing a new generation of veteran trees, maximising tree and
shrub diversity and increasing quantities of deadwood (Coppins and Coppins 2006).
• Increasing the size and connectivity of woodland habitats increases their diversity and
resilience.
An overview of the habitat requirements and favourable condition for lower plants and fungi
in pinewoods is shown in table 2.
Table 2. Overview of habitat requirements and favourable condition for lower plants and fungi in pinewoods.
Bryophytes
Fungi
Lichens
Diversity of tree species
and age classes
Provides diversity of
habitat niches
Deadwood
Fallen decorticate
trunks (with no bark) of
any tree species. The
most species-rich
deadwood habitats tend
to be restricted to fallen
‘bones’ in sheltered
conditions.
Provides host continuity
for all types of fungi
(“functional modes”)
All stages of deadwood
enable a natural wood
rotting succession to
function. Small scale
dead attached
branches on living trees
and small and large
standing and fallen
trees should all be a
part of the wooded
habitat
Stumps, tree bases &
pine roots
Provides habitat niches
Provides habitat niches
Rock outcrops, boulders,
cliffs & crags
Well-lit scree is a
particularly important
habitat in the east.
Shaded rocks and
outcrops, particularly in
Vascular plants
All plant &
fungi
groups
Habitat requirements
Open-grown ‘granny’
trees in sheltered
situations
Fallen decorticate
trunks (with no bark)
forming “pine-lignum”
habitats, particularly
standing or fallen
‘bones’ in well-lit,
sheltered conditions.
Trees partly lifted from
the ground by root
plates and upper
canopy branches,
allowing air to circulate
freely, provide the most
suitable lignum habitat.
Snags’, or attached,
dead decorticate
branches also valuable
Pine roots exposed for
a long time provide
habitat niches
Provides diversity of
habitat niches
Diversity of age
structure provides
dappled light conditions
a
a
all except
vascular plants
Windthrow can provide
open ground for
seedling establishment
a
ravines, are important in
the west
Tracks, paths & exposed
earthen banks
Juniper
Aspen
Birch
Old Calluna stands
Important niches for
stipitate hydnoid ‘tooth’
fungi and other species
with similar
requirements
In humid sites can have
a good epiphytic
bryophyte flora.
Can have a diverse
epiphytic bryophyte
flora including some
rare species.
In the west can have
important oceanic
bryophyte assemblages
where deer grazing is
not excessive; this is
especially important in
the Western pinewoods
for oceanic liverworts
Flushes, mires and boggy
areas
An important habitat for
bryophytes
A mix of tree age classes
& species
At least some areas of
canopy cover maintained
between 50 and 100%
a
a
a
a
Provide niches for
ground-dwelling lichens
Can provide niches for
plants such as
twinflower
Ancient juniper can
support specialised
lichen assemblages
Supports particularly
species-rich lichen
assemblages in the
east
A priority species
where deer grazing is
not excessive; this is
especially important for
the Western pinewoods
Open old heather can
provide suitable niches
for seedling
establishment.
Vaccinium of any age
can also provide similar
conditions
Important niches for
specialised fungal
assemblages
Favourable conditions
a
a
a
a
a
Maintained populations of
juniper & aspen
Open areas of mire, crag
or scree maintained
Maintained or preferably
increased amounts of
deadwood
a
a
a
a
Severe reduction in tree &
shrub cover leading to loss
of habitats & niches
Total exclusion of grazing
leading to dense thickets &
loss of species diversity
Scrub encroachment on
mire areas
a
Encroaching shade on
scree and crags
Deadwood removed from
site
Evidence of eutrophication
Non native invasive
species present
High levels of soil
disturbance / compaction
from grazing, recreational
or other activities
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Unfavourable conditions
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
3. Guiding principles for woodland management
Woodland dynamics and long term management: Woodlands inevitably change and develop
slowly through time in long cycles, with mainly the later stages being optimal for many
specialist plant species. However, all the phases of woodland succession are inevitable over a
long time period and the different plant species have their own strategies dealing with them.
Therefore, the wide variety of woodland structures and compositions which comprise the
natural successional stages are potentially acceptable expressions of favourable habitat
conditions. Sometimes short term losses of plant diversity may occur that are followed by
gains in the longer term. For example, this could happen when a wood is thinned in order to
promote a new generation of older, large trees. The benefits or impacts of different
management options can only be assessed using timeframes measured in decades or longer.
Landscape scale: The ecological quality of woodland for plants and fungi needs to be
assessed on whole woodland or catchment scale (10-100ha or more), as well as at stand scale.
A woodland which is 99% birch may look non-optimal – but if the rest of the woodland in the
catchment is pine monoculture, it suddenly becomes desirable as an element of diversity.
Similarly management options can only be judged at these larger scales. It is usually
desirable to manage to achieve a variety of age classes and woodland structures at catchment
scale but makes no sense to attempt to represent these in individual woods. The overall
pattern to strive towards is a dynamic patchwork of different woodland conditions, including
open space, with the various stages slowly shifting their locations through time.
Analyses at landscape scales via the IPA or Forest Habitat Network models can be used to
make informed decisions as to how best to optimise the development of high quality habitat
patches into larger networks. Formation of networks aids dispersal of species and creates
larger more resilient populations. This approach can work at all scales from habitat patches
within individual woodlands, to woodlands within a catchment. This approach is thought to
work well for plants and fungi even though many woodland plant populations appear to be
able to survive in small habitat patches of habitat and have relatively poor dispersal
capabilities. Woodland networks should be integrated as far as possible with open ground
habitat networks.
Natural versus artificial: It has widely been assumed that natural compositions and
structures, together with the processes that gave rise to them, are always desirable. Whilst
this is still a safe assumption in many cases (especially in closed canopy woodland), some
artificial conditions arising from past management are also valuable and worth perpetuating.
Indeed the distinction between natural and artificial is often sufficiently hard to define in
theory and observe in the field, that it can become a distraction rather than a useful tool.
This can be illustrated by upland wood pastures and pine woods with open grown trees; they
are clearly highly valuable ecologically, but may have many artificial aspects. They may have
had ‘natural’ counterparts in the distant past but their status in historic and prehistoric times
can currently only be guessed at. The filling in of gaps in woodland by natural regeneration to
form closed canopy woodland is a natural process leading to what most people would regard
as a more natural structure, yet it is often ecologically undesirable. Artificial aspects of
woodlands need to be assessed for their own ecological value and only changed if there are
clear biodiversity (or other) benefits, rather than being changed simply because they do not
conform to our current view of what might be natural.
Disturbance: Disturbance is a natural process leading to cyclical changes in woods and with
different plants and fungi losing and gaining as a result of disturbance episodes. Boreal woods
are subject to disturbance of relatively short timescales resulting from fire, wind, disease and
climatic stresses. The assumption should not automatically be made that disturbance is bad
and will damage plants and fungi. While this will be true of some species, others actually
require periodic disturbance. It is useful to try to form a picture of the disturbance regimes in
different parts of woods and how different plants and fungi cope with them. Management
interventions aimed at introducing greater diversity into woodland and/or harvesting timber
often share some attributes with natural disturbance; knowledge about how plants and fungi
cope with natural disturbance allows you to assess the effects of these management
operations. Disturbance regimes in Caledonian pinewoods tend to be very varied in scale and
type, with a small number of large events and many smaller ones causing death of individual
trees and small groups. Fire sufficient to cause tree death is rare, and pinewood plant and
fungi species are adapted to withstand it, although uncontrolled muirburn is damaging.
Refuges with long periods between disturbance events exist in old woodland in very sheltered
sites with good soils, in some types of ravine for example, whereas disturbance cycles
elsewhere are often shorter. All this suggests that woodland ground plants and fungi are very
well adapted to a variety of disturbance events operating over different time scales.
Trade-offs: Different plant species have different habitat requirements and so respond
differently to management interventions. For example, conditions for lichens may improve
following careful opening of the canopy, whereas this may not be the case for bryophytes.
This effect is less of an issue in eastern pinewoods than in western pinewoods and
broadleaved woodland. There will sometimes be difficult trade-offs to make, at all scales
from choosing individual trees in a thinning operation, through to choosing management
options for individual woods at catchment scale.
Personal attitudes to time-frames and intervention: Some managers prefer to rely on
natural mechanisms to effect change, which typically act slowly and have relatively
uncertain, though naturalistic outcomes. Others prefer to use more interventionist
management techniques, which produce faster and usually, but not always, more certain
outcomes. There is frequently no way of resolving which approach is best. It is a matter of
personal preference and the unique combinations of factors at each site. Professional
attitudes ebb and flow somewhat, and recent decades have seen a preference for less
interventionist approaches in general (eg. fencing is now seen as problematic), but a greater
acceptance of well thought out management intervention where benefits are proven (eg. the
manipulation of ground cover by prescribed burning or controlled gazing).
Few right answers: There are a few management options that are universally viewed as
positive; namely the removal of Rhododendron ponticum and the institution of appropriate
grazing. However beyond these, there are few wholly right answers in determining the
management of individual woods. Managers need to be able to make a clear case for their
chosen management interventions, or the lack of them, and to be able to justify them in the
face of apparently equally viable alternatives.
4. Landscape-scale planning for woodlands
This involves analysing the distribution and conservation value of woodlands in order to
determine how they contribute to habitat networks and how networks can be improved. This
allows the most important areas for woodland for conservation work to be identified. This is
useful mainly for organisations involved in the setting of priorities at regional scale.
Landscape scale planning for woodlands can be done as an Important Plant Area exercise (see
section 1.3) or, to give greater detail, as a Forest Habitat Network project (Moseley and Ray
2007). In both cases the aims will be to classify the current woodland habitat according to its
conservation value and then to determine, in this case:
1. areas/networks of native woodland of high conservation value which can act as core
habitat from which species might be able colonise adjacent lower quality woodland.
2. areas of lower native value woodland which can contribute to networks by being
restored to higher value woodland.
3. plantation conifers, some of which might be best converted to native woodland.
4. which areas of woodland can most usefully be expanded in order to improve networks.
This involves developing fewer larger networks in a catchment to replace smaller
scattered networks. It also requires determining the conservation value of the open
land that new woodland might be established on, to avoid impacting on valuable open
ground habitats and networks.
The order of priority for conservation work that emerges from IPA and FHN analyses will
generally be as follows:
• Priority 1: Protect and improve habitat condition of native woodland in core areas
(FHN= Core Habitat). Focus first on areas of highest quality woodland.
• Priority 2: Improve habitat condition of woodland in zone of opportunity (= FHN
restoration and conversion zones) starting with areas adjacent to areas of core
habitat. This will involve work to improve the conservation status of native woodland
(= FHN restoration zone) or convert plantation conifers to native woodland (= FHN
conservation zone).
• Priority 3: Expand native woodland in core area into adjacent non-wooded area in
the zone of opportunity (= FHN expansion zones) if appropriate and feasible. This is
best done in a way that expands the highest quality woodland and/or creates the
largest networks and has least impact on any valuable open ground habitats.
Maps of the Cairngorms and other IPAs identified for Caledonian pinewood are available at
www.plantlife-ipa.org along with summary information sheets. Details of how to carry out
FHN analyses are given in Moseley and Ray 2007. FHN maps generated using low ‘dispersal
distances1’ (say 100-200 m) are most appropriate, as woodland plants are assumed to have
low dispersal capabilities (Long and Williams 2008). The management techniques most
appropriate for implementing these priorities are described in section 5.2.
1
Forest Habitat Network maps use specific dispersal distances (from a few hundred metres to
several km) to illustrate how woodland blocks are effectively connected into networks for species
with different dispersal capabilities.
Using GIS mapping to assess conservation value at landscape scale
GIS mapping of woodland can make a good start on identifying areas of high quality woodland
by focusing on designated areas and ancient semi-natural woodland. However, the databases
used have some problems associated with them. As a result, maps can be broad brush and
contain substantial local inaccuracies; notably they may miss many smaller woods of high
conservation value and highlight areas of ancient semi-natural woodland of only moderate
value due to past history of intensive management. Initial maps built from publically available
data should ideally be supplemented and tested against more detailed records and reports
from species experts. These include reports commissioned by SNH, National Trust for Scotland
and Scottish Wildlife Trust, for example, and rare and threatened databases held by the
specialist societies and often available at www.nbn.org.uk. All lichen surveys commissioned
by SNH and others in Scotland are listed at
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AshyEG2UDWgycF9YRDlrbl81NGJKTElhVkpFT3FOR1
E&hl=en_GB. Plantlife is completing this process through IPA mapping, which is being
gradually published at www.plantlife-ipa.org. Such maps are, however, only suitable for
strategic planning and not for making management decisions for individual sites. The
development of the Scottish Native Woodland Survey is aiming to provide detailed maps as
GIS layers, available to professionals through the Forestry Commission Scotland website.
Using GIS to assess the conservation value of open ground, adjacent to woodlands, that might
be suitable for woodland expansion, is also extremely difficult. It is possible to get some
indication from GIS layers describing broad vegetation types (especially for mires/peatlands)
and landuse categories. However there is always a balance between maintaining open
habitat within a woodland setting to maximise mosaic diversity and connecting woodland
fragments to increase resistance to deterioration and to facilitate species movement. While
open areas are described in IPA analyses as ‘zones of opportunity’ (see Fraser and
Winterbottom 2008 for details), ultimately it is always necessary to carry out ground survey to
determine if they are suitable for conversion to woodland.
5. Site (woodland) scale management
This section sets out the how managers and owners can:
•
Assess the botanical / mycological conservation value of individual woods or parts of
woods
•
Identify problems affecting plant and fungal communities
•
Draw up prescriptions to address the problems that can be entered into a woodland
plan, SSSI or LBAP plan or an SRDP application.
At this stage it is assumed that it is useful to know how to improve the conservation value of
all areas of woodland – irrespective of their current conservation value and scope for
improvement. Once the conservation status (botanical/mycological value, woodland
condition, management needs) of a woodland or group of woodlands has been assessed, it
becomes possible to prioritise those areas most deserving of attention.
5.1 Assessing woodland and drawing up management prescriptions
The process of determining the best management prescriptions starts by assessing the
botanical / mycological value of the site, then moves onto consider the woodland condition
and ends by determining the management needs. The stages involved in this are summarised
in figures 2 and 3 below.
Step 1 Assess the value of the plants and fungi: the botanical / mycological value
The aim is to distinguish areas with high botanical / mycological value from more ordinary
areas of Caledonian pinewoods. Areas with high botanical / mycological value are
distinguished by:
• areas with diverse plant communities, the presence of characteristic or rare species or
communities, especially pinewood herbs, lichens, bryophytes and fungi
• presence of ancient woodland with ancient woodland indicator species
• favourable topography and microtopography (rocks, boulders, crags)
• large quantities of deadwood
• favourable grazing levels
• low levels (usually but not always) of past management.
The first step in surveying woodland is often to do an initial rough survey – which might often
be no more than a fairly rapid walk around the wood. This allows you to do a quick
assessment of the plants and fungi and woodland condition and to roughly divide the wood
into provisional management units according to topography, woodland type, condition and
immediately apparent management needs. These management units should have broadly
similar woodland characteristics and management needs. Their boundaries can be adjusted
as survey of the wood progresses.
Following the simple guidance given here helps woodland managers to assess the botanical
interests of the site, without detailed knowledge of vascular plants, fungi, bryophytes and
lichens. Hopefully, this process will also enhance appreciation and enjoyment of the wide
botanical diversity of Caledonian pinewoods sites.
Figure 2 Outline of process for determining management prescriptions for woodland
plants and fungi
1. ASSESS WOODLAND FLORA
(BOTANICAL / MYCOLOGICAL VALUE)
Draw up plant lists and determine National
Vegetation Classification woodland type.
Identify areas of the wood of high value.
2. IDENTIFY ANY PRIORITY SPECIES OR
COMMUNITIES
Determine whether there are plant / fungal species
/ communities that should be afforded particular
priority.
3. ASSESS CONDITION OF THE WOOD
Describe / assess the features of the
woodland that have a bearing on plant /
fungal communities – both positive and
negative (grazing, woodland composition,
woodland structure, regeneration etc).
4. WHAT ARE THE KEY PROBLEMS AND
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT
PRESCRIPTIONS?
Determine conservation problems and
management prescriptions that address these.
OTHER MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS
Consider the effects of management
prescriptions for other objectives (productive
use, recreation, grazing) on vegetation.
Amend as necessary
5. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CONSERVATION
MANAGEMENT
Consider any impacts of proposed management
prescriptions on other aspects of conservation
value and wider management objectives
(productive use, recreation, grazing). Amend if
necessary. Trade-offs will be necessary.
6. WOODLAND PLAN
Enter prescriptions into a management
plan
The next step is to carry out a full survey, during which plant / fungi species lists are drawn
up. The aim of this is to divide the site into areas with similar vegetation according to:
1. woodland NVC community - to help provide an overview of mainly vascular plants and to
guide general woodland conservation management;
2. botanical and mycological value - to identify areas with high quality plant / fungi
communities, using key pinewood herbs, bryophytes, lichens and fungi.
Most woodland or ecological surveyors will be able to draw up a satisfactory list of vascular
plants and assign sites to a woodland NVC type. However some surveyors will have difficulty
with lichens, bryophytes and fungi and unfortunately there are currently only a small (but
increasing) number of surveyors with a good knowledge of lower plants and fungi who might
be called upon to help. To overcome this, a method of assessing the botanical value of sites is
provided below which requires little or no prior ability to identify bryophytes, lichens and
fungi. The approach uses two levels of assessment:
• Plantlife Level 1 Assessment of Botanical / Mycological Value (Box 1): this requires no
identification of bryophyte, lichen and fungi species, but presence of habitats suitable
for important lichens and bryophytes are inferred from canopy, deadwood and
topographic features. This is sufficient to flag up areas of potential higher botanical /
mycological value. These would ideally then be assessed using the Level 2 to verify
the existence of the most obvious key fungi, lichens and bryophytes.
• Plantlife Level 2 Assessment of Botanical / Mycological Value (Box 2): this requires
identification of a small number of pinewood herbs, fungi, lichens and bryophytes
using Plantlife identification leaflets (Acton 2009, Holden 2010, Rothero 2010, Scott
2011). Most woodland /ecological surveyors willing to invest a little time identifying
characteristic herbs, fungi, lichens and bryophytes will be able to use this method.
Expert surveys
Some owners and agents will be in the position to engage expert plant surveyors who will be
able identify plants and fungi in all species groups and give a detailed picture of the value of
sites. Guidance on assessments at this expert level is available (eg. Coppins and Coppins
2002).
Contact Plantlife Scotland or the Lower Plant and Fungi Advisor at Scottish Natural Heritage
for a list of reputable expert consultants, who are able to conduct surveys to the highest
standard.
Figure 3. Evaluation of botanical / mycological value
INITIAL SURVEY: Familiarise yourself with
the wood and its vegetation. Divide it into
provisional management units according to
topography, woodland type, and
management needs etc.
VEGETATION SURVEY: Make species lists for
vascular plants and as many lichens or
bryophytes as you easily can. Divide the
site into areas with similar vegetation.
Assign an NVC type to each provisional
management unit.
BOTANICAL VALUE ASSESSMENT LEVEL 1
REQUIRES NO IDENTIFICATION OF LOWER PLANTS
Use the Plantlife Level 1 Assessment to identify areas of woodland that
are potentially of high botanical value focusing on bryophytes and
lichens
BOTANICAL VALUE ASSESSMENT LEVEL 2
REQUIRES IDENTIFICATION OF A FEW KEY LOWER PLANTS
Use the Plantlife Level 2 Assessment to identify areas of woodland that
are of high botanical focusing on bryophytes and lichens
Produce vegetation map showing NVC
and areas of high botanical value
Box 1.2 Plantlife Level 1: Assessment of Current Mycological Value:
Woodland areas are scored for the attributes shown in Box 1 by ticking the box in each row that
best describes the site. The site (or part of a site) is then ascribed to a category of mycological
value by looking at the weighting of the ticks (low, medium, high). This approach gives a basic
assessment of sites for fungi and is suitable for use by all woodland surveyors.
LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT
MYCOLOGICAL VALUE
ATTRIBUTE
VALUE
LOW
MEDIUM
Canopy cover
Sparse canopy
cover:
small/young or
mid age
trees/shrubs
Dense canopy
cover:
small/young or
mid-age
trees/shrubs
Sparse canopy
cover of old or
veteran trees /
shrubs
Glades
No glades
No glades
Tree species
Mainly birch and
/ or alder with
rowan and only a
little pine
Mainly birch and
/ or alder with
rowan and only a
little pine
Occasional
ungrazed
glades or newly
established
glades with
short sward
Mainly pine
with a small
element of
broadleaves
Old trees
Mostly
small/young
recently
established trees
Mostly
small/young
recently
established trees
Woodland
size, history
and proximity
to ancient
woodland
Small fragment
of plantation
woodland (<1
ha) more than
50km from
ancient woodland
Small fragment
of plantation
woodland (<1
ha) more than
50km from
ancient woodland
Presence of
deadwood
No deadwood
Small quantities
of small girth
deadwood
Significant
proportion of
older/bigger
trees but not
in vicinity of
ancient
woodland OR
occasional
older/bigger
trees on or
close to
ancient
woodland
Large area of
plantation
woodland (>1
ha) more than
50km from
ancient
woodland
Significant
quantities of
standing and
fallen
deadwood – say
~ 30 m3/ha
including dead
attached twigs
and branches
on living trees
HIGH
Dense canopy
cover of old or
veteran trees
and shrubs, or
scatter of old or
veteran trees
through dense
canopy of
younger trees
Occasional glades
with well
established,
short sward
including
grassland fungi
Mainly pine with
broadleaves,
mainly birch,
scattered
throughout
Significant
proportion of
older/bigger
trees on or near
ancient
woodland site
Any sized area of
woodland
thought to be
ancient or
plantation
situated within
50km of ancient
woodland
Large quantities
of standing and
fallen deadwood
including dead
attached twigs
and branches on
living trees.
Standing and
fallen deadwood
should include
trunks/limbs of
significant girth.
Presence of
shrubs and
sub-shrubs
Mostly Ling with
some blaeberry
Mostly Ling with
some blaeberry
Ling and
blaeberry,
maybe
occasional
juniper
Special
features
NUMBER OF
TICKS
LOW
MEDIUM
Ling and
blueberry,
frequent juniper
in some central
and eastern
sites. The
presence of
bearberry, dwarf
birch or rockrose
Presence of bogs,
bare mineral soil
associated with
tracks, paths,
river banks etc.,
base rich
outcrops.
HIGH
Box 1.1 Plantlife Level 1 Assessment of Current Botanical Value:
Woodland areas are scored for the attributes shown in Box 1.1 by ticking the box in each row that
best describes the site. The site (or part of a site) is then ascribed to a category of botanical value by
looking at the weighting of the ticks (low, medium, high). This approach gives a basic assessment of
sites for vascular plants, lichens and bryophytes and is suitable for use by all woodland surveyors.
LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT:
BOTANICAL VALUE
ATTRIBUTE
Within the stand
mostly dense
canopy cover
throughout of
older trees and
shrubs
Occasional glades
Within the stand
some areas of sparse
canopy cover of
veteran trees /
shrubs; or old
woodland
Frequent glades
Mainly downy
birch and/or alder
and rowan with
only a little pine
Mainly pine with a
small element of
broadleaves
Older trees
present, but most
broadleaved trees
with silvery rather
than fissured bark
Small quantities of
deadwood
Significant
proportion of
older/bigger trees
inc. broadleaves
with fissured bark
Significant
quantities of
standing and
fallen deadwood –
say ~ 30 m3/ha
Scattered, small
boulders or crags
on even slope
Minor
watercourses with
gradually shelving
sides
Frequent larger
boulders and crags
on uneven slope
Deep gully, but no
waterfall or crags
Mainly pine with a
significant element
of broadleaves
(birch, rowan, holly,
alder, willows,
aspen)
Significant
proportion of
older/bigger trees
inc. broadleaves with
fissured bark
Large quantities of
standing and fallen
deadwood especially pine
‘bones’, standing or
fallen decorticate
pine trunks
Large blocky
boulders and crags;
hard to walk across
Deep ravine with
waterfalls and crags
Canopy cover
Sparse canopy
cover mostly
comprising
small/young
trees/shrubs
Dense canopy
cover comprising
mainly
small/young or
mid-age trees
Glades
No glades
No glades
Tree species
Mainly downy
birch and/or alder
and rowan with
only a little pine
Old trees
Mostly
small/young
recently
established trees
Presence of
deadwood
No deadwood
Presence of
boulder slopes
/ scree
Presence of
ravines
No boulders or
crags, even terrain
No ravines
Special
features
Sub-shrubs
Juniper
Presence of
pinewood
herbs
NUMBER OF
TICKS
Mostly ling with
occasional
blaeberry
In eastern and
central woods:
not present
In eastern and
central woods:
not present
Mostly ling with
occasional
blaeberry
In eastern and
central woods:
not present
In eastern and
central woods:
not present
LOW
Ling and frequent
blaeberry
Occasional in
eastern and
central woods
In eastern and
central limited to
chickweed
wintergreen
MEDIUM
Presence of old
aspen trees, base
rich outcrops.
Ling and frequent
blaeberry incl. some
old leggy stands.
Frequent in central
and eastern woods
including old stands.
In eastern and
central woods:
frequent chickweed
wintergreen, plus
creeping lady’s
tresses with some
rarer herbs present,
e.g. twinflower
HIGH
Box 2 Plantlife Level 2 Assessment of Current Botanical and Mycological Value:
Woodland areas are scored for the attributes shown in Box 2 by ticking the box in each row that best describes the
site. The site (or part of a site) is then ascribed to a category of botanical / mycological value by looking at the
weighting of the ticks (low, medium, high). This approach gives a simple but fairly effective assessment of sites and is
suitable for use by all woodland/ecological surveyors. The species mentioned here can be found in the Plantlife
guides (Acton 2009, Rothero 2010, Scott 2011 and Holden 2010). Additional species that indicate habitat quality will
be present, but for the purposes of this exercise, it is sufficient to use the species shown in the guides.
LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENT: BOTANICAL & MYCOLOGICAL VALUE Pin‐head lichens Caliciales Not present LICHENS Not present Witches’ hair Alectoria sarmentosa subsp. sarmentosa (eastern and central pinewoods only) Brown‐beard lichens Bryoria Not present Not present Present, but infrequent Not present Not present Present, but infrequent Lobarion communities Not present Not present Present but infrequent Parmelietum laevigatae community (note: western woods only) Not present Not present Present but infrequent Limited to stands of common large pleurocarpous species mainly on the woodland floor BRYOPHYTES Limited to stands of common large pleurocarpous species mainly on the woodland floor Present, but infrequent Frequent bryophytes and with a more diverse flora in habitats other than the Present on suitable areas of lignum, particularly pine Present in eastern and central pinewoods More than one species present in eastern and central pinewoods In western woods > 20% cover on old rowans (at least in sheltered situations). In eastern and central woods present on rowan, Salix or hazel In western woods only ‐ at least 60% cover, and at least some Usnea species present on branches and twigs, especially on birch in well‐
lit and sheltered situations Locally abundant and with a diverse flora in a wide range of different habitats woodland floor Sub‐shrubs Mostly ling with occasional blaeberry VASCULAR PLANTS Mostly ling with Ling and occasional frequent blaeberry blaeberry Juniper In eastern and central woods: not present In eastern and central woods: not present Presence of pinewood herbs In eastern and central woods: not present In eastern and central woods: not present Ling and frequent blaeberry incl. some old leggy stands. Occasional in Frequent in eastern and central and central woods eastern woods including old stands. In eastern and In eastern central limited and central to chickweed woods: wintergreen frequent chickweed wintergreen, plus creeping lady’s tresses with some rarer herbs present, eg twinflower FUNGI
Stalked Tooth Fungi (Bankera, Hydnellum, Phellodon, Sarcodon) Not present
Not present
Present but infrequent
Pine Bracket) (Phellinus Not present
pini) Bracket species on the trunks Not present
Present but infrequent
Copper Brittlegill Russula decolorans Not present
Not present
Present but infrequent
Medusa Brittlestem. (Psathyrella caput‐
medusae) Note: Cap and stem scaly with a pleasant aromatic smell Pine Milkcap (Lactarius musteus) Not present
Not present
Present but infrequent
Not present
Not present
Present but infrequent
Present as fruit bodies– growing with pine in soil MEDIUM
HIGH
NUMBER OF TICKS
LOW
Present as fruit bodies often in ‘hotspots’ in mineral soils (often limited to track sides, old borrow pits and river banks) mainly in central and eastern pinewoods Brackets usually high up on trunks of mature pines. Often covered in lichen and moss Present as fruit bodies ‐ growing with pine in soil Present as fruit bodies – growing in tufts on conifer stumps. The output of this stage should be a vegetation map showing the NVC communities and
indicating the botanical and mycological value of the sites (see map 1). Individual species and
habitats of note can be shown on maps as labelled arrows.
1
Step 2 Determine priority plant and fungi species/communities
On sites of high botanical and mycological value, determine whether there are priority plant
and fungi species or communities on which management should focus. When considering the
condition of the woodland and drawing up management prescriptions (step 3-5 below), bear
in mind the habitat requirements of these priority species.
Step 3 Assess woodland condition
Assess the condition of the wood by gathering information on the features of the wood that
have a bearing on the plant communities (see table 3). These features can be split between:
• Inherent features of the woodland eg. its topographic features, ancientness
• Features influenced by management eg. age classes, canopy composition
Lists should be drawn up of the features that contribute to or detract from the condition of
the woodland. These lists can be entered into a management plan in the sections that
describe the conservation value and condition of the woodland.
2
Table 3 Checklist of features influencing woodland condition
Positive features
Negative features
Heading
Representation of woodland
types in landscape
1.
Inherent features of woodland
Includes areas of:
No variation in woodland type
Aspen
Juniper scrub
Pine bog woodland
Riparian woodland
High elevation woodland
Areas with granny trees
Birch woodland where this is otherwise poorly
represented
Site antiquity / continuity
Ancient semi-natural woodland on ASNW inventory
Ancientness apparent from plant communities
although vascular plant indicators are somewhat
less reliable in Caledonian pinewoods
Recent origin or planted woodland
Habitat network
Woodland part of large patch / network / corridor
Areas of deep woodland conditions
Valuable woodland edge areas (especially if focus is
on lichens)
Wood not in network, isolated by ground that
might be better carrying some woodland
Plant habitat
Deadwood (see below)
Ravines, boulders, especially large block scree,
crags
Watercourses, waterfalls
Flushes
Glades
Canopy composition
2.
Features determined by past management
Diverse canopy with representation of birch, aspen, Monocultural overstorey of pine, especially
rowan, goat willow, oak
where this is common in rest of catchment
Pine trees gaining representation in secondary birch Planted pine on non-pinewood site (eg. oakwoodland
birch)
Tree canopy species reflecting NVC communities
and underlying soil types
3
Canopy structure
Representation of different age/size classes;
presence of young or very old trees
Signs of natural disturbance due to wind, disease,
drought, landslip etc
Presence of canopy gaps / glades
Presence of juniper, holly, willows
Blaeberry common in understory
Few old / large/ veteran trees
Shaded veteran trees
Tree and shrub regeneration
Presence of seedling /sapling shrubs and trees
where this is desirable
Deadwood
Significant quantities of deadwood, both standing
and lying
Old and dying trees, evidence of natural mortality
and self thinning
Open space of high conservation value
within/beside woodland
Grazing/browsing at apparently sustainable levels
and favourable for plant groups of interest
Sheep excluded or only seasonal (winter) use by
sheep
Controlled grazing regime in place esp. if with
cattle
Deer management plan in place that achieves
acceptable deer densities
Deer damage on saplings and shrubs at acceptable
levels
Control of salmonberry and snowberry, or
regenerating exotic conifers in progress
Tree or shrub seedlings in areas of important
open space e.g. in glades needed to support
lichens. Large areas of dense birch regeneration
in areas of high botanical value woodland.
Little or no deadwood
Shrubs
Associated open space
Grazing
Exotic species
4
Shrub layer lacking
Large expanses of closed canopy / dense
woodland with no open space or edges
Total exclusion of browsing and grazing by deer
fence
Presence of deer of stock numbers throughout
year
Widespread damage by trampling, poaching and
localised erosion
Stock and deer preventing seedling and sapling
growth in area designated for woodland
regeneration
Presence of salmonberry, snowberry or
regenerating exotic conifers
If it is considered helpful, different areas of the woodland can be assigned to
different classes of woodland condition (poor, good, very good), using the features
listed in table 3. A simplified overview of the elements that need to be captured
in such a categorisation is shown in table 4.
Table 4. Overview of categorisation into classes of woodland condition. This can
be done if it is considered helpful to produce a map of woodland condition.
Woodland
condition
Very good
Grazing
Composition
Structure
Antiquity
Deer and stock
numbers
controlled, but
not excluded
Inclusion of several
native trees and shrubs
that reflect site
conditions and/or tree
and shrub species
dominated by species
that are favourable for
priority plants
No exotic trees/shrubs
Mix of early and later
successional tree/shrub
species with
representation of species
especially favourable for
priority plant species.
No or few exotics
tree/shrubs
Complex
structure
(canopy layers,
age classes,
gaps, deadwood)
and/or structure
favourable for
priority plants
Ancient
woodland and
/or presence of
mature /
overmature
trees
Some structural
diversity and
some areas
where structure
is favourable for
priority plants
Ancient or
“long
established of
plantation
origin”
woodland
Some old trees
Tree species limited in
number over very large
areas. Shrubs lacking
Exotic trees/shrubs
present
Simple structure
and single age
class
Recent,
planted or long
established of
plantation
origin
Good
Stock excluded
Deer at
acceptable
densities
Poor
Uncontrolled
grazing at
unacceptable
levels
OR
All grazing
totally excluded
for an extended
period (>7 years)
.
Output at this stage should include a list of woodland condition issues for entry into
a management plan.
Step 4 Conservation problems and prescriptions
Determine conservation problems that can be addressed by management ie.
aspects of non-favourable condition for each management unit. A list of typical
problems and the management prescription to address them are shown in section
5.2. These can be split into:
• Connectivity
• Grazing control
• Lack of botanical / mycological diversity
• Woodland structure
• Woodland composition
• Tree and shrub regeneration
• Deadwood
• Invasive exotic plant species
5
Determine the best management prescriptions to address the problems using the
guidance set out in section 5.2 as a starting point. Further detail can be added by
referring to specific management guidance publications. If you have selected
priority species and communities for the site, order the management prescriptions
to prioritise those activities that improve conditions for those species.
Outputs at this stage can be:
1. A list of problems and prescriptions for entry into a management plan.
2. Some of the key problems and prescriptions marked on a management
prescriptions map.
Step 5 Integration with other management objectives
Management prescriptions for plants and fungi need to be integrated with other
management objectives for the wood. There are two issues:
• Consider the impacts of prescriptions for plants and fungi on other aspects
of conservation especially pinewood mammals, birds and invertebrates; or
wider management objectives (timber production, recreation, grazing). If
they have unacceptable impacts, consider amending them.
• Consider any negative impacts of management for wider objectives
(productive use, recreation and grazing) on woodland plants and fungi.
Amend these as necessary.
Step 6 Enter information and prescriptions into plan
Enter the information on the botanical / mycological value, woodland condition,
conservation problems and management prescriptions into a plan and, importantly,
the accompanying maps. This can either be a woodland plan or an SSSI
management plan.
5.2 Management prescriptions
1. Planning issues
1.1 Safeguarding areas of high botanical / mycological value
Problem: Areas with high botanical and mycological value need to be protected so
they can act as sources for species to colonise adjacent lower quality woodland.
Management prescriptions:
Map areas of high/very high botanical / mycological value assess features on site to
help inform a view of:
•
the factors that have allowed plant communities to flourish (site,
topography, history, management, grazing).
•
the direction that natural woodland dynamics are currently taking the site.
These include changes in tree/shrub cover and composition, canopy structure,
canopy gaps, light regime, deadwood, invasion of exotic species.
•
any small scale management activities for example, including grazing,
collection of firewood, that have been carried out in the wood and whether they
are compatible or incompatible with the high botanical and mycological value.
Ensure the continuation of those factors that have been favourable for plant and
fungi communities and only contemplate altered management (for plants or for
other objectives) when there are solid grounds for this. Evaluate the changes that
are likely to arise in the long term as a result of the long term operation of natural
woodland dynamics. Decide if any of these need to be redirected by management
intervention. Only interfere with ongoing small scale management if it has
6
demonstrable negative impacts.
1.2 Encourage the spread of woodland plants and fungi within woodland
Problem: A key aim is to expand areas of high botanical / mycological value. This
means careful management of adjacent woodland, to facilitate the expansion of
areas of high botanical / mycological value in the very long term, i.e. decades.
Management prescriptions:
Restoration zones: Set up restoration zones around areas of high botanical /
mycological value where management focuses on creating conditions conducive for
expansion of the woodland plant and fungi communities in question. This will
involved delineating areas at least 100 m wide and ideally up to 500 m where
management will be weighted towards the prescriptions set out in the sections 2-7
below. Establishment of a suitable grazing regime will often be critical. This will
take many years to implement and have a discernible effect.
1.3 Expansion of woodland patch/network size
Problem: Small populations of plants and fungi in small habitat patches are
generally more vulnerable than larger populations. A key priority is to increase
the networks by joining smaller patches and networks together to form larger ones
by creating strategically placed new woodland.
Management prescriptions:
Woodland expansion: Where areas of woodland of high botanical and / or
mycological value are adjacent to open ground areas of lower conservation value,
and where there is a net benefit to establishing new woodland or woodland/open
ground mosaics, afford high priority to woodland expansion. The best location for
new woodland is best determined using a Forest Habitat Network approach (see
section 4 and guidance in Moseley and Ray 2007). Expansion should often be sought
primarily by natural regeneration and should be achievable where suitable seed
sources are present and especially if advanced regeneration is already in place.
For species missing in the source woodland (typically woodland shrubs and the less
common trees), consider planting small numbers of these amongst regeneration.
For guidance on woodland expansion, see Rodwell and Patterson 1994, Thompson
2004. Any expansion should specifically aim to take in high quality conservation
habitats which would benefit from inclusion in a larger woodland network and
which could operate as refugia, from which species could spread, eg.
watercourses. However care must be taken that existing high quality open habitats
in or near the woodland are not compromised. These may include base-rich
flushes, mire areas and smaller areas of block scree.
1.4 Age diversity
Problem: At a catchment scale, it is best if there is representation of a range of
woodland and tree age classes, so new habitat can be recruited to replace mature
woodland lost by disturbance and / or mortality. Ideally catchments with no or
very little young woodland would be prioritised. This logic does not apply at the
scale of single woodlands or even large blocks of woodland, where even-aged areas
of pine and birch woodland are to be expected.
Management prescription:
Woodland expansion: Get rough information on the age distribution of the type of
woodland under consideration at catchment scale. Observations made simply by
driving around in the general area are likely to suffice. If there is little recent
recruitment of younger trees, prioritise sites within the catchment for expansion,
especially high conservation value woods with valuable plant and fungi populations.
2. Grazing control
7
Problem: Grazing and browsing levels are often too high and impact negatively on
woodland plants, preventing establishment of woodland shrubs and/or trees. At
the same time total exclusion of grazing is known to be detrimental and controlled
grazing by deer or domestic stock is beneficial.
Management prescriptions:
Controlled grazing as part of a stock and / or deer management plan. Controlled
grazing by domestic stock, although currently still experimental, is also an option.
Guidance about the most appropriate age(s) of woodland and suitable grazing
regimes in terms of intensity, timing and type is available through the online
woodland grazing toolbox (Black and Armstrong 2010)
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/woodlandgrazingtoolbox.
a)
Temporary deer or stock fencing. Fencing should be seen as a temporary
measure to effect change in the woodland, after which it is dismantled and ideally,
controlled grazing is established. There needs to be a plan to set out clearly what
the objective of fencing is, when it has fulfilled its purpose and the arrangements
for dismantling it.
b)
Individual protection of regenerating trees and shrubs. This can be useful
in small woodlands where browsing is confined to roe deer and the main
requirement is to establish a new generation of scattered (usually broadleaved)
trees and shrubs, such as aspen. It is usually successful in areas where there are
already signs that unprotected regeneration is growing beyond the seedling stage,
but being held back by deer. Protecting saplings using netting stapled to stakes is
best and tubes should be avoided, especially in shaded conditions.
3. Manipulating the woodland canopy to improve conditions for plants
and fungi
3.1 Pine monocultures: tree diversity issues
Problem: Low representation of other naturally occurring tree species in pine
woodland due to past management. This is particularly true of planted pine stands
occupying key locations in pine woodland networks. This can lead to lack of plant
species associated with the missing tree species, especially epiphytes.
Management prescriptions:
Diversify tree canopy species representation to reflect site conditions. Identify
areas (from small patches to whole stands) that would naturally carry species other
than pine and birch. These include:
y willows, downy birch and alder on damper, more nutrient rich sites.
y aspen on all types of sites with mineral soils, but especially on gulley sides,
near crags and on riparian sites.
y oak and birch on more nutrient rich sites, indicated by a reduced
component of heather and blaeberry and increasing presence of typical
oakwood species including grasses, bracken, greater stitchwort, wood sage
and slender St. John’s wort.
Where seed sources for other appropriate trees and shrubs exist: Search out preestablished seedlings (e.g. aspen, birch, willow, rowan, alder, oak) and protect
from browsing with mesh stapled onto stakes. Focus on seedlings growing where
canopy conditions are favourable – on appropriate sites types and in canopy gaps,
i.e. not immediately below mature trees.
Without seed sources for other appropriate trees and shrubs: Consider same
approach as above, but supplemented by planting of very small numbers of local
provenance tree/shrub seedlings in appropriate locations. These will act as future
8
seed sources.
3.2 Pine monocultures: tree size and structure issues
Problem: Native woods that have been managed for timber and pine plantations
can have even-aged and even-sized structure, and this lack of diversity can limit
niches for epiphytes. However even-aged areas are a natural part of pinewood
ecosystems, and so managers can be more tolerant of even-aged structures than in
broadleaved woodland. Over the very long term, variation in tree size will
increase as natural mortality takes its course and a decision needs to be made as to
whether natural processes are adequate or whether active management
intervention is desirable.
Management prescription:
Thin to promote tree size diversity: Survey the site and make an assessment of
how natural mortality is proceeding and whether this might be sufficient to
introduce tree size diversity in the future. If not, consider thinning, especially if
the wood is being managed with timber production as one of the aims. Thinning
should aim to free-up a component of larger trees and heavily branched trees (see
6 below). Where small scale thinning is being used for conservation objectives, the
following methods can be beneficial: cutting high stumps, ring-barking to provide
standing decorticate timber and winching trees over to simulate wind-blow.
3.3 Large / old open grown veteran trees
Problem: Lack of recruitment of large / old / open grown veteran trees that are
especially valuable for epiphytes.
Management prescriptions:
a)
New woodland: Include a component of open grown trees in all new
woodland. These should be at a spacing of 10m or more.
b)
Thinning scattered trees/clumps: Many woods include areas of scattered
trees and small clumps. Some of these can be thinned by picking the largest trees
and removing the trees around them to create open grown trees.
Problem: Space around open grown veteran pine and broadleaved trees in-filled by
regenerated or planted trees in new woodland or on fenced sites. This can shade
out important epiphytes and damage the veteran trees.
Management prescription: Discourage regenerating trees by periodic cutting with
handsaw, brushcutter or chainsaw and re-instituting grazing.
3.4 Woodland / open space mosaics and glades
Problems: Some plant and fungi species, especially lichens, thrive in woodlands
containing a mosaic of woodland and open space in the form of glades, and there is
the danger of these mosaics being lost either due to woodland loss (lack of
regeneration due to grazing) or excessive regeneration.
Management prescription: Identify important areas of woodland / open space
mosaic and consider what needs to be done to perpetuate them; either:
1. Where glades are being lost - by cutting out unwanted tree regeneration
and instituting grazing;
2. Where trees are being lost - by controlling grazing and promoting
regeneration.
4. Woodland shrubs and scrub
4.1 Under-representation of shrubs
Problem: Under-representation of shrubs, especially juniper and holly.
Management prescription: Recruit shrubs, ideally by natural colonisation (see
9
2.2.1 above), resorting to small scale planting only when there is no realistic hope
of natural colonisation due to distance to seed sources. Further management
advice for juniper: Broome 2003, McBride 2005.
5. Deadwood
Problem: Deadwood of all types is an important habitat for many lower plant and
fungi species, and is typically present in insufficient quantities. This is largely the
result of past management practices.
Management prescription: Ensure that the management plan has a statement on
the amount and type of deadwood present, its value for plants and fungi and the
prospects for more following natural morality of trees and branches. If desirable,
an inventory of deadwood can be carried out and the quantities present estimated
(m3/ha) to get an idea about how far the amount present is from recommended
levels, which are usually at least 40-100 m3/ha (Forest Enterprise 2002). On sites
where deadwood is an important habitat, enter into negotiations with any local
interests that may be currently, or in the future, extracting timber and agree a
suitable policy on retention of deadwood. Attempt to restrict firewood collection
(e.g. of birch) to sites of lower botanical / mycological value. Further
management advice: Mason et al 2004 (pp 196-7), Rothero 2008.
6. Timber harvesting
Problem: Timber harvesting affects ground-dwelling plants and fungi and epiphytes
but done sensitively its impacts can be short-lived and may have some benefits,
e.g. increasing blaeberry growth or stimulating the flowering of woodland herbs.
Management prescriptions: Timber operations are best carried out on a
‘continuous cover’ regime involving thinning and small group felling, rather than a
clearfelling regime (see Mason et al 2004). During thinning and felling, decisions
on which trees to remove should be taken not just on the basis of timber value, but
also to retain a proportion of trees most suitable for epiphytes and fungi and to
retain areas of open space. Trees to be favoured include dead and dying trees,
large trees with rot and/or bracket fungi and large multi-stemmed trees.
Extraction of trees can be done by any method, including skidding, provided this is
done with care. There is some evidence that skidding of trees is at least neutral
for, or could help, the dispersal of pinewood herbs with trailing growth habit such
as twinflower.
7. Control of invasive non native species
7.1 Conversion of non-native conifers to native pine woodland, including PAWS
sites
Problem: Conifer plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS) or adjacent to high
quality native pine woodland, occupy key areas of habitat and conversion to native
woodland is usually desirable.
Management prescription: convert conifers to native woodland using a gradualistic
approach outlined in Thompson et al 2003 and Mason et al 2004.
7.2 Other invasive non native vascular plants
Problem: Invasive introduced plant species can often locally outcompete native
ground flora species, especially in riparian areas. In native pinewoods the main
problems are snowberry and salmonberry.
Management prescription: Roughly map the extent of the problem and identify
areas where invasion of important plant communities is taking place. Take a
strategic approach to control measures, targeting areas where holding back the
10
advance of the invasives is achievable and might be permanent. Information on
specific control measures is given at www.nonnativespecies.org and Tweed Forum
(2003).
8. Movement of woodland plants and fungi into species poor isolated woodland
Problem: Many woodland plants and fungi are poor at colonising recently
established woodland. Woodland plant communities in such woodlands can remain
impoverished for long periods. Where impoverished woodlands remain isolated
from areas with more natural woodland plant communities, colonisation by natural
means is thought to be unlikely.
Management prescriptions
a)
Institute a programme of woodland expansion that links the area in
question into a forest habitat network. There is then the prospect of woodland
plants and fungi arriving by natural colonisation over an extended time period.
b) For isolated woods where there is little prospect of linking them into a forest
habitat network and where the owner wishes to aid the development of a more
naturalistic woodland ground flora, plants can be translocated by planting (see
http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/woodland_ground_flora.html). Plants can
either translocated within larger sites to increase their distribution and numbers,
or from one site to another with similar ecological conditions. Plants are often best
translocated as plant fragments (stolons, plantlets) from a nearby wood on a
similar site, with the permission of the owner of the donor site. Plants can also be
raised from seed and planted out. Plants can be multiplied up in a garden bed,
provided that a reasonable number (say more than ten) donor plants are used.
This option should remain a low priority for woodland management. Plants listed
on Schedule 8 (www.jncc.gov.uk ) should not be used for this purpose and require
a licence from SNH.
5.3 Integration of management prescriptions
There appears to be relatively few potential areas of conflict between
management for timber and conservation of plants in pinewoods. Thinning is not
usually a problem in pine woodland provided it is done sensitively, as woods like
Curr Wood demonstrate. It is particularly important to retain areas of overmature
trees and areas with large volumes of deadwood, so it is important to institute
areas of ‘natural reserves’ and ‘long term retentions’ as promoted under the UK
Woodland Assurance Scheme. The main management prescriptions that may pose
problems for plant communities are:
• total removal of grazing for woodland regeneration by fencing
• conversion of open woodland with granny trees to closed canopy woodland
• encouragement of natural regeneration on sites best kept as open ground
• achieving regeneration of more palatable species broadleaved species
whilst avoiding dense regeneration of pine.
These can be mitigated using the approaches to management set out in section 5.2
above. In addition there are situations where recreational pressure from walkers
could conceivably be detrimental to plant and fungi communities. This requires
that the location of new footpaths or picnic areas, for example, is done sensitively
to avoid any areas of high botanical or mycological value that might be susceptible
to increased pressure, and that extraction routes and roads are confined to areas
of lower botanical value. However increased access can be used over small areas
as a means of deer control, as deer will tend to avoid areas with regular access by
11
people and dogs.
5.4 Monitoring
The effects of management operations aimed at improving the condition of
woodland plants and fungi should ideally be monitored. However monitoring
anything but the most obvious changes quickly becomes time consuming and
requires carefully planning.
Possible approaches include:
1. Simple field observations: visit the sites of operations before, during and
(periodically) after they take place and keep an informal dairy of
observations, backed up by photos.
2. Fixed point photography: for important sites where changes can easily be
detected by photography, consider the use of fixed-point photography.
3. Periodic survey using quadrats or transects; engage an expert surveyor to
advise on the design and execution of such work. This is usually only
advisable in special situations.
More advice on monitoring is given through Plantlife’s volunteer Flora Guardian
programme, which offers monitoring techniques suitable for non experts. Plantlife
may also be able to help place volunteer Flora Guardians at sites where monitoring
is required. For further information, contact Plantlife Scotland.
5.5 Support via Scottish Government grant schemes
Many of the management activities described in 5.2 above can be part-funded
through the Scottish Governments Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP)
grants (see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Rural/SRDP). The main options
are under the headings for Rural Priorities for biodiversity (see table 5). These are
competitive and managed through 11 regions (RPACs). Rural priorities in each
region are broadly comparable, although there are some differences. Regional
priorities usually include BAP species, designated sites, viable populations of rare
and threatened species (Red List), invasive non native species and connected
natural habitats. In addition, woodland creation and woodland management plans
are supported under Land Managers Options.
Table 5 Aspects of woodland management for conservation supported under SRDP
Rural Priorities. For details see
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Rural/SRDP/RuralPriorities
Feature supported
Native woodland
biodiversity
PAWS restoration
Management of
nature sites,
favourable condition
Endangered species
Control of nonnatives
Landscape scale
Rural Priority example
Highland
HIG08
HIG08
HIG09
HIG10
HIG11
HIG12
12
restoration
Low intensity grazing
HIG 12
13
References
Acton, A. 2009. Lichens of Scottish pinewoods. Guide 1: leafy and shrubby lichens
on pine, birch, alder and deadwood. Guide 2: Crustose and scaly lichens on
pine, birch, alder and lichens on trees with more acidic bark. Plantlife
Scotland, Stirling.
Amphlett, A., Holden, L., Allcorn, R. & Gurney, M. 2006. Effects of cutting and
burning of heather Calluna vulgaris on fungal fruiting in Caledonian pine forest
at Abernethy Forest RSPB reserve, Inverness-shire, Scotland. Conservation
Evidence, 3, 106-108.
Anderson, S. 2002. Identifying Important Plant Areas. Plantlife International,
Salisbury.
Black, R. and Armstrong, H. 2010.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/woodlandgrazingtoolbox
Broome, A. 2003. Growing juniper: propagation and establishment practices.
Forestry Commission Information Note. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Coppins, A.M. and Coppins, B.J. 2002. Indices of Ecological Continuity for
Woodland Epiphytic Lichen Habitats in the British Isles. British Lichen Society,
London.
Coppins, A.M. and Coppins, B.J. 2006. The lichens of the Scottish native
pinewoods. Forestry, 79: 249 – 259.
Coulthard, N and Scott, M. 2001. Flowers of the Forest – Managing Scottish
woodlands for wild plant biodiversity. Plantlife, London.
Crawford, C. 2009. Ancient woodland indicator plants in Scotland. Scottish
Forestry, 63, 6 – 19.
Edwards, C. 2007. Managing and controlling invasive rhododendron. Forestry
Commission Practice Notes. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Forest Enterprise, 2002. Life in the Deadwood. Forest Enterprise, Edinburgh 17 pp.
Fraser M. and Winterbottom, S. 2008. Identifying and mapping boundaries for
Important Plant Areas: Scotland’s West Coast Important Plant Area for Atlantic
Woodland. Plantlife Scotland, Stirling. Available at www.plantlife.org.uk.
.Holden, E. 2008. Scotland’s rare tooth fungi: an introduction to their
identification, ecology and management. Plantlife Scotland, Stirling.
Holden, E. 2010. Fungi of Scottish Pinewoods Guide 1: Widespread and common
fungi of pinewoods. Fungi of Scottish Pinewoods Guide 2: Rarer fruiting fungi
of pinewoods. Plantlife Scotland, Stirling.
Humphrey, J.W., Newton, A.C., Peace, A.J. and Holden, E. 2000. The importance
of conifer plantations in northern Britain as a habitat for native fungi' Biological
Conservation, 107, 2, 181-192.
JNCC, Plantlife and Royal Botanic Garden Kew. 2004. Plant Diversity Challenge:
the UK’s response to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. JNCC,
Peterborough.
Kennedy 2009 Lever and mulch, a day in the life of. Reforesting Scotland 39,
20-21.
Legg, C., McHaffie, H., Amphlett, A. and Worrell, R. 2003. The status of wooded
bogs at Abernethy, Strathspey. Pp. 12-16 In Restoring Natural Forest Habitats.
Highland Birchwoods, Munlochy, Ross and Cromarty.
Long D. and Williams, J. 2007. Juniper in the British Uplands. Plantlife Scotland,
Stirling.
Long, D. and Williams, J. 2008. Rhododendron ponticum: impact on lower plant
and fungi communities on the west coast of Scotland. Plantlife Scotland,
Stirling. Available at www.plantlife.org.uk.
14
Mason, W.L., Hampson, A. and Edwards, C. 2004. Managing the Pinewoods of
Scotland. Forestry Commission Edinburgh.
McBride, A. 2005. Managing uplands for juniper. Plantlife. www.plantlife.org.uk.
Moseley, D.G. and Ray, D. 2007. Forest Habitat Network for Grampian. Forest
Habitat Networks Grampian Report. Forest Research, Roslin.
www.forestry.gov.uk
Newton, A.C., Holden, E., Davy, L.M., Ward, S.D., Fleming, L.V. and Watling, R.
2002. Status and distribution of stipitate hydnoid fungi in Scottish coniferous
forests. Biological Conservation 107: 181-192.
Parlane,S., Summer, R.W., Cowie, N.R. and Van Gardingen, P.R. 2006.
Management proposals for bilberry in Scots pine woodland. Forest Ecology and
Management 222, 272-278.
Parmasto, E. 2001. Fungi as indicators of primeval and old-growth forests deserving
protection. In Moore, D., Nauta, M.M., Evans, S.E. & Rotheroe, M. Fungal
Conservation Issues and Solutions, Cambridge University Press.
Parrot, J. and MacKenzie, N. 2008. Aspen in Scotland: biodiversity and
management. Highland Aspen Group. www.scottishaspen.org.uk.
Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) 1992. British Plant Communities: Vol. 1 Woodland and Scrub.
Cambrdge University Press.
Rodwell, J. and Patterson, G. 1994. Creating Native Woodlands. Forestry
Commission Bulletin 112. London.
Rothero, G. P. 2008. Looking after green shield moss (Buxbaumia viridis) and other
mosses and liverworts on dead wood. Plantlife Scotland, Stirling.
Rothero, G. P. 2010. Bryophytes of Scotland’s pine woodlands. Plantlife Scotland,
Stirling.
Scott, M. 2011. Managing Scotland’s pinewoods for their flowering plants. Plantlife
Scotland, Stirling.
Shaw, P and Thompson, D. (eds). 2006. The Nature of the Cairngorms. Scottish
Natural Heritage, Inverness.
Thompson, R.N. 2004. Predicting site suitability for natural colonisation: upland
birchwoods and native pinewoods in northern Scotland. Forestry Commission
Information Note 54. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Thompson, R.N. 2005 Thinning in Atlantic oakwoods – Assessing options at a stand
scale. Highland Birchwoods, Munlochy. 32 pp.
Thompson, R., Humphrey, J., Harmer, R. and Ferris, R. 2003. Restoration of Native
Woodland on Ancient Woodland Sites. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Tweed Forum. 2003. Controlling invasive plants in the Tweed Catchment. Tweed
Forum. Melrose.
Worrell, R. 1995. European aspen (Populus tremula L.): a review with particular
reference to Scotland: 1 Distribution, ecology and genetic variation. Forestry
68, 93-106.
Worrell, R. 1996. The Boreal Forests of Scotland. Forestry Commission Technical
Paper 14. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Worrell, R. and Dunlop, B. 2003. The influence of past management of Pinewoods
on the occurrence of twinflower. Plantlife Scotland, Stirling. Available at
www.plantlife.org.uk.
15
Plantlife is the organisation that is speaking up for the nation’s wild plants. We
work hard to protect wild plants on the ground and to build understanding of the
vital role they play in everyone’s lives. Wild plants are essential to life – they
clean our air and water, provide food and shelter for our insects, birds and animals
and are critical in the fight against climate change.
Plantlife carries out practical conservation work across Scotland, manages nature
reserves, influences policy and legislation, runs events and activities that help
people discover wild plants and works with others to promote the conservation of
wild plants for the benefit of all. HRH The Prince of Wales is our Patron.
Wild plants have been marginalised and taken for granted for too long. Please help
us by supporting our work.
To find out more, please visit our website or contact us at the office below.
Plantlife Scotland
Balallan House, Allan Park, Stirling FK8 2QG
Tel. 01786 478509
[email protected]
www.plantlife.org.uk
Speaking up for the nation’s wild plants
Plantlife International – The Wild Plant Conservation Charity is a charitable
company limited by guarantee.
Registered in England and Wales, Charity Number: 1059559.
Registered in Scotland, Charity Number: SC038951
Registered Company Number: 3166339. Registered in England.
ISBN: 978-1-907-141-45-4
© March 2011
16