1

2

MANAGEMENT OF WOODLAND PLANTS IN ATLANTIC BROADLEAVED WOODLAND

A CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK

Written by Richard Worrell and Deborah Long

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank: Sandy Coppins, Gordon Rothero, Richard Thompson (Forest Enterprise), Dave Genney (SNH), Lucy Sumsion, Peter Quelch and Carol Crawford for their advice and expert input. Thank you to Sue Nottingham for proofreading and Luke Morton for design.

3

Contents

1. Introduction 3 1.1 Aims 3 1.2 Need for improved management of plant communities 3 1.3 The Important Plant Area concept 3

2. Atlantic Woodland and its current management 6

2.1 Defining Atlantic Woodland 6 2.2 Current management of Atlantic Woodland

7 2.3 Management for woodland flora 9

3. Guiding principles for woodland management 11 4. Landscape scale planning 14 5. Site (woodland) scale management 16

5.1 Assessing plant communities and drawing up management prescriptions 16 5.2 Management prescriptions 27

1. Planning issues 27 2. Grazing control 28

3. Manipulating the woodland canopy to improve conditions for flora 28

4. Woodland shrubs and scrub 30 5. Deadwood 30

6. Control of invasive exotic plant species 31 7. Conversion of conifer to native woodland, including PAWS 32

8. Movement of woodland plants into species poor isolated woodland 32 5.3 Integration of management prescriptions 32 5.4 Monitoring 33 5.5 Support via Scottish Government grant schemes 34

4

1. Introduction 1.1 Aims This report describes a “conservation management framework” for Atlantic woodland 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 flora. 2. Outline management guidance for woodland flora at both local (site) and catchment (habitat network) scales. 3. 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:

There is relatively little management guidance aimed specifically at woodland flora, compared with that available for trees, birds, mammals and some invertebrates. There is a need to strengthen landscape scale and habitat network approaches in

conservation management to augment current site based approaches. 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 (Moseley et al. 2005), the Woodland Grazing Toolkit (Sumsion and Pollock 2006), and the Peterken-Worrell management models for Atlantic Oak woodlands (Peterken and Worrell 2005, Quelch 2005). It is intended to be suitable for all organisations involved in woodland conservation and management. Atlantic woodland 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 West Coast IPA under Plantlife Scotland’s Back From the Brink programme. 1.2 Need for improved management of plant communities Most woodland plans, especially those without designated areas, have limited coverage of woodland flora and little or no consideration of management that might enhance plant communities (other than trees). Management specifically aimed at safeguarding and enhancing woodland plants in Scotland has started to be developed in the last five years (Coultard and Scott 2001, Coppins and Coppins 2005, Moseley et al 2005, Rothero 2005, Thompson 2005, Sumsion and Pollock 2006, Averis and Coppins 1998, Coppins et al. 2008). However, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Averis and Coppins 1998, Thompson 2005), 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.

5

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 (Plantlife, Kew and JNCC 2002). 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. 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 an 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. These 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, if the current land use is appropriate and correct habitat management is carried out, the key species or habitats could expand. 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 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. For example, initial analysis of the West Coast IPA has indicated that the Sunart area IPA for Atlantic

6

woodland is similar to the Sunart Forest Habitat Network1 (see figs 1 and 2). This is important because many of the woodland managers involved with Atlantic woodlands will be familiar with the Forest Habitat Network approach.

Figure 1: West Coast Scotland IPA showing the core areas and zones of opportunity.

1 Core Areas and Zones of Opportunity in IPAs are equivalent to “habitat“ and “restoration / conversion /

expansion zones” of Forest Habitat Networks.

7

Figure 2: IPA map for Loch Sunart area. Green areas are Zones of Opportunity, other colours are different categories of Core Area.

The West Coast Scotland IPA The West Coast Scotland IPA is one of 42 IPAs identified in Scotland. It covers an area of about 800 km2 stretching from Kinlochbervie in the north, to Tarbert in the south and Glen Coe in the east (http://www.plantlife-ipa.org/Factsheet.asp?sid=1116). Most sites within this area have been nominated for old sessile oak woodland and montane oceanic heath2, both habitats that are internationally rare. Some of the best Atlantic woodland sites for oceanic bryophytes and lichens in Europe occur here. It includes 47 core sites, nominated for the rich diversity of bryophytes, lichens and other plants, many of which are internationally important. Subsidiary core sites are identified as ancient woodland with a high diversity of lichens and / or bryophytes and the presence of an indicator species, Plagiochila heterophylla (Fraser and Winterbottom 2008). The main threats to woodland sites are the spread of Rhododendron ponticum, over and under grazing and inappropriate woodland management. Core Areas and Zones of Opportunity Fraser and Winterbottom (2008) identified 47 core sites, according to their rich bryological and lichenological diversity, with additional subsidiary core sites identified from a) the SNH Ancient Woodland Inventory, b) specific sites identified by Averis (2001); and c) sites with Plagiochila heterophylla, an indicator species for Atlantic woodland. Details of the mapping procedure are given in Fraser and Winterbottom (2008).

2 Other habitats included are dune systems, Caledonian pinewoods, blanket bog and freshwater lochs.

8

2. Atlantic woodland and its current management 2.1 Defining Atlantic woodland Atlantic woodland is woodland that occurs in highly oceanic climatic conditions close to the Atlantic Ocean. Various definitions have been put forward employing the terms Atlantic, oceanic and hyperoceanic to describe the climate, woodland and plant communities and usually focusing on:

Wetness i.e. high annual rainfall, high numbers of wet days, wetness during summer season, low potential water deficit.

Little annual temperature variation and low incidence of frost and snow cover.

For the purpose of this report all native woodland within the West Coast Scotland IPA is to be considered to be ‘Atlantic’ (see Figure 1). The botanical defining characteristics of Atlantic woodland centre on the rich bryophyte and lichen communities that are supported in these climatic conditions, that often show gradations with increasing oceanicity even within the Atlantic zone. As a result of the climatic conditions and topography, Atlantic woodlands acquire other characteristics:

- high wind speeds result in wind driven disturbance patterns and in coastal areas, dwarfing of trees including salt effects; - steep environmental gradients with proximity to coast and increasing elevation lead to strong landscape-scale variation; - the soils show clear patterns of leaching and flushing according to topographic position, with corresponding variation in woodland and plant communities; - the often highly incised topography, including ravines and raised coastlines, leads to unusual habitats and habitat network patterns.

At a global scale Atlantic woodlands are best considered as part of the coastal temperate rainforest biome, which has a very restricted global distribution (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Global locations of temperate rainforest biome (Weigand et al, 1992, see Worrell 1996). There may also be small areas on the coasts of France, Spain and Portugal.

9

Woodland communities Atlantic woodlands include the following woodland communities:

• Oak-birch woodland W11 and W17. • Ash woodland W9: usually in small patches. • Alder and willow ‘wet’ woodlands - mainly W4 (downy birch) and W7 (alder). • Hazel woodland that do not fit well into the National Vegetation Classification (NVC). • Pine woodlands W18.

Woodland conservation effort in recent decades has focused strongly on oak woodlands because of their botanical importance for bryophytes and lichens, their greater extent and their dominance in designated sites. Ash and hazel woods have received less attention in the past, though many ecologists would now rate them as at least as important as oak woods, not least because they have a more natural composition and structure compared to many coppice oak woodlands. Ancient hazel woods with long site occupancy have recently received considerable attention (Coppins et al. 2008). Alder and willow woods can have important bryophyte and lichen elements. The extensive areas of recent W4 downy birch woodland are of more limited value at present, although they may provide valuable habitats in future. Some NVC pinewood sub-communities (notably W18d Sphagnum capillifolium/ quinquifarium and W18e Scapania gracilis) share aspects of the lower plant interest with Atlantic broadleaved woodlands and have similar management needs. Guidance will focus on the following plant communities: W11b Blechnum spicant sub-community, W17a Isothecium myosuroides – Diplophyllum albicans subcommunity, and W9 ash woodlands and hazel scrub. Wet woodland and pine communities, which often occur in intimate mosaics with the main oak-birch and ash woodlands, are included as associated woodland types. 2.2 Current management of Atlantic woodland Current woodland management as it influences woodland flora is best described in relation to two main factors:

• Management of tree cover: this covers interventions to alter the composition and structure of the canopy which can influence woodland flora and spans a range from ‘no management’ (neglect) through ‘minimum intervention’ to ‘conservation management’ and ‘multi-purpose management’.

• Management of grazing: this covers grazing by both wild deer and domestic stock; and spans the range from no control (high grazing pressure), to controlled grazing (by fence and/or deer culling or via woodland grazing plans), to zero grazing in fenced plots.

These two factors are encountered in a surprising number of permutations to give the main management scenarios: 1. No woodland management: no woodland management or restricted to opportunistic removal of small quantities of firewood.

a) Unenclosed grazed woodland: woodland (and wood pasture) used as grazing and shelter for farm stock and/or deer. Where densities of farm stock are high (especially sheep) this is usually unfavourable for most plant communities, though it can be acceptable in the short term for epiphytes. At lower grazing densities and/or seasonal grazing, it can be favourable for some bryophytes and many lichens.

10

b) Woodland enclosed by stock fences but with no deer control: woodland (and wood pasture) often regarded primarily as deer shelter. Woodland is often moderately favourable for ground flora and favourable in areas which are difficult for deer to access (ravines etc); often favourable for epiphytes and bryophytes on boulders.

c) Total exclusion of grazing: this happens temporarily over small areas when broadleaved woodland is deer-fenced for other purposes, usually fences erected for commercial forestry. This can give rise to young regenerating broadleaved woodland, which can be temporarily detrimental to lower plant communities. Absence of browsing can be favourable for woodland plants for a year or two, but rapidly becomes unfavourable. However, deer populations usually penetrate these areas after a few years and they revert to type 1b above, although shading in highly stocked young stands can be detrimental to lichens.

2. Conservation management: this occurs as a) minimum intervention restricted to deer control and removal of exotic species and b) active conservation management which involves improving the composition and structure of the woodland in addition to deer control and removal of exotics. Work directed at diversifying the canopy, encouraging native shrubs and increasing deadwood is generally beneficial for all plant groups provided it is done sensitively and no trees with rare epiphytes are removed in thinnings. Both management approaches are encountered on woodland nature reserves and increasingly in private and Forestry Commission woodlands.

a) Without deer control: scattered tree and shrub regeneration might be protected by guards. Generally moderately favourable for woodland flora and favourable in areas which are difficult for deer to access (ravines etc).

b) With deer culling under deer management plan: with deer control at a level intended to allow recruitment of tree regeneration in gaps and at woodland edges. Generally favourable for woodland flora as browsing is never wholly eliminated, but can be detrimental to those bryophytes requiring heavier grazing / browsing, or where canopy gaps critical for lichens become infilled by tree shrub regeneration.

c) With controlled grazing: controlled grazing under a woodland grazing plan intended to improve woodland flora. Potentially a highly favourable management regime, currently only implemented over small areas in woods traditionally grazed by cattle (under FC stewardship grants).

d) Deer control primarily by fencing: typical of ‘regeneration areas’ in native woodlands. Allows recovery of regenerating trees and shrubs. Total exclusion of grazing instituted to encourage regeneration of trees and shrubs eventually becomes damaging for many ground flora species, although tall herb communities can prosper on some sites.

3. Multipurpose woodland management: this usually involves management aimed at small scale timber extraction by thinning and group felling, with or without deer control, and often includes elements of conservation management. On an appropriate site, at a sensible scale and done with care, timber management is typically neutral or only slightly/temporarily damaging for some woodland plants and over the long term can be compatible with conservation of plants. If carried out on important plant sites and done without regard to the flora of the site, this can be damaging, especially for lower plants. Recent history of management Prior to about 1990, the management of the majority of woodlands could have been

11

characterised as ‘neglect’ i.e. they were unmanaged woodland on estates and farms3, simply used as pasture and shelter for deer and farm stock, with occasional local cutting for firewood. There was a scatter of well-known instances of minimum intervention management, mainly on oak woodland national nature reserves (e.g. Ariundle in Sunart, Glen Nant near Taynuilt and Taynish, near Crinan). Parts of these areas were subject to small group fellings to attempt to initiate a new age class of trees, though this rarely had the intended effect. Oakwood SSSIs increasingly had SSSI plans, which were either implemented or not, according to the wishes of owners. A few woods were managed sporadically for timber, although this mainly took the form of opportunistic felling of more valuable trees. Starting in the early1990’s, renewed interest in native woodland had the effect of encouraging management of oak woods, often promoted by native woodland initiatives with support from Forestry Commission and Scottish Natural Heritage (e.g. www.sunartoakwood.org.uk). This encompassed a range of approaches from minimum intervention, to active conservation management aimed at restructuring and promoting regeneration, through to multiple benefit management with an emphasis on small scale timber harvesting. Fencing aimed at total exclusion of grazing and browsing was common practice. At the same time there was an increasing appreciation of the botanical and cultural value of grazed wood pastures and veteran trees, especially in western Scotland. Starting in 2003, these approaches were augmented by initiatives to encourage controlled woodland grazing of livestock initiated by farm woodland interests (Sumsion and Pollock 2006). The main manifestations of these factors have been:

• A significant increase in the area of woodland enclosed by either stock or deer fencing and increased culling of deer within large fenced enclosures (Ratcliffe and Staines 2005).

• Some attempts to diversify oak monocultures by group felling aimed at initiating oak regeneration. Dense birch regeneration with rowan and some oak regrowth has been the usual outcome.

• Attempts to harvest small quantities of oak timber to supply mobile sawmills. • A series of trials of controlled grazing by domestic stock supported by S9 Stewardship

grants under the former Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme. • Ongoing restoration in some significant areas of PAWS plus a few small areas of

Rhododendron clearance. • Until recently, an increasing number of woods being the subject of management plans.

Many of these have now expired with no grants schemes in place to continue them. • Very recently, signs of an increase in firewood extraction and the installation of mini

hydro schemes. Both have the potential to impact negatively on lower plant communities in high botanical value woodland.

2.3 Management for woodland flora Efforts to introduce management aimed specifically at woodland flora have begun. These have generally been limited to:

• Botanical and site condition monitoring surveys of important sites, that have mainly fed into management plans for designated areas.

• Awareness raising, involving a limited number of owners and agencies, but latterly more widely via targeted publications and events.

3 The vast majority of Atlantic oakwoods are on privately owned land.

12

• Control of grazing: the traditional reliance on permanent fencing is being replaced by limited efforts to institute temporary fencing, deer culling under deer management plans and controlled grazing using the Woodland Grazing Toolkit.

• Removal of exotics especially Rhododendron ponticum, with site-based projects being replaced by a more strategic approach.

Management guidance for plants Management guidance specifically aimed at safeguarding and enhancing plants in Atlantic woodland has been developed in the last five years (e.g. Coppins and Coppins 2005, Rothero 2005. Thompson et al. 2005). The Atlantic Oakwood Symposium in 2004 led to the production of papers providing management principles for bryophytes and lichens, with particular reference to Atlantic oak (summarised in table 1). This has been followed by the publication of a new series of identification guides by Plantlife Scotland describing the key common lichens (Acton and Griffiths 2008) and bryophytes (Rothero 2010) of Atlantic woodlands and providing a means for non-experts to engage with the identification of important species. Management guidelines for fungi in Atlantic woodland are limited to general guidance on deadwood (Watling 2005) and on hazel gloves fungus (Coppins et al 2007). Recent woodland management guidance seeks to integrate conservation management with wider economic and social objectives, giving prescriptions which are widely applicable and fairly pragmatic (Peterken and Worrell 2005, Thompson 2005, Quelch 2005). Peterken and Worrell developed 5 “management models” (long rotation high forest, standard rotation high forest, minimum intervention, wood pasture, coppice) to help steer woodland management in the Sunart Oakwoods. These give owners a range of options and if all models are represented within a catchment, would safeguard conservation interests whilst allowing some productive use. In addition, progress has been made in landscape scale management using the Forest Habitat Network approach (Moseley et al. 2005), the output of which is generally sound for woodland flora provided low dispersal distances are used. Responding to the need to thin oakwoods, Thompson et al. (2005) produced innovative guidance on how to select trees for thinning using a process that includes assessment of the value of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens on individual trees and boulders. Collectively, current guidance adopts the following general positions:

• That current bryophyte and lichen interest of oakwoods is high and needs to be protected from unwise management intervention and invading exotics (Coppins and Coppins 2005, Rothero 2005, Long and Williams 2008). • Management to increase the structural and tree species diversity of woods, if done carefully, can be compatible with conservation of bryophytes and lichens (Peterken and Worrell 2005, Thompson 2005, Quelch 2005). • Careful management of the woodland canopy can increase bryophyte and lichen diversity especially in the longer term e.g. by producing a new generation of veteran trees, enhancing species diversity and increasing deadwood (Thompson 2005, Coppins and Coppins 2005). • Conditions for woodland plants can be improved by controlling grazing (Sumsion and Pollock 2006). • Coppicing of ancient hazelwoods can be highly detrimental for epiphytes (SNH 2008). • Conditions for some species groups, especially lichens can be improved by diversifying the structure and composition of woods. • Translocations of ‘missing’ plant species may be beneficial for common woodland species in some limited circumstances (Coulthard and Scott 2001).

13

Table 1: an overview of the main habitat requirements, threats and management recommendations for different plant groups (based on Rothero 2005 and Coppins and Coppins 2005)

Habitat requirements

Main threats Favourable, or at least neutral, management practices

Woodland herbs, small shrubs and ferns

• Variety of light levels accord-ing to species

• Intermediate grazing levels

• Appropriate tree and shrub species in the canopy according to site

• Invasion by Rhododendron ponticum & beech

• Over grazing • Zero grazing • Perpetuation of

oak canopy on ash woodland sites

• Controlled grazing • Removal of Rhododendron

ponticum and beech • Minimum intervention

management • Thinning and small group

fellings in uniform woodland canopy

Bryophytes and epiphytic ferns

• Suitable substrates: rocks & trees

• Constant high humidity

• Old veteran trees

• Deadwood

• Clearfelling • Felling of high

biodiversity trees, • Felling/thinning on

southerly aspects • Felling thinning

near key gorge sites

• Timber extraction that reduces dead-wood

• Invasion by Rhododendron ponticum & beech

• Excessive shading by exotic trees/ shrubs

• Over grazing • Zero grazing • Disruption of

boulders & rock-outcrops by creat-ion of extraction routes and forest roads

• Controlled grazing • Removal of Rhododendron

ponticum & beech • Minimum intervention

management. • Buffer strips along

watercourses and ravines and near high biodiversity sites

• Careful thinning based on bryophyte biodiversity of individual trees

• Removal of infilled saplings around old open grown tree

• Favouring large trees during thinning which can become future veterans

• Avoiding chemical control of bracken on high biodiversity sites

14

Lichens

• Suitable substrates

• High humidity • Variety of

light levels – mainly semi-shade

• Variety of tree and shrub species

• Old, veteran trees

• Presence of deadwood

• Intermediate grazing levels

• Clearfelling • Felling of high

biodiversity trees • veteran trees • Felling which

reduces deadwood • Coppicing of

hazelwoods • Invasion by

Rhododendron & beech

• Over grazing • Zero grazing

• Controlled grazing • Removal of Rhododendron

ponticum & beech • Maintain full range of tree

sizes • Variable stocking and

irregular thinning. • Small group fellings in

uniform woodland canopy • Removal of infilled saplings

around old open grown trees

• No gap infilling with planted trees

• Prevention of development of dense understorey

15

3. Guiding principles for woodland management Woodland dynamics and long term management: woodlands inevitably change and develop slowly through time in long cycles, with only some stages (mainly with mature / over-mature trees) 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 for 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, 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 needs to be assessed on whole woodland or catchment scale (10-100ha or more), as well as at stand scale. An oak-birch woodland which is 99% birch may look non-optimal, but if the rest of the woods in the catchment turn out to be oak monocultures, 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 (as has misguidedly been attempted in places during recent decades). The overall pattern to strive towards is a dynamic patchwork of different woodland conditions with the various stages slowly shifting their locations through time. Analyses at landscape scales via the IPA or Forest Habitat Network (FHN) models can be used to make informed decisions as to how best to optimise the development of high quality habitat patches into larger networks. The 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 even though many woodland plant populations appear to be able to survive in small habitat patches and have relatively poor dispersal capabilities. Natural v. 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, and can become a distraction rather than a useful tool. This can be illustrated by wood pastures; they are clearly highly valuable ecologically, but have many artificial aspects4. 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 old wood pasture 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 usually 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

4 The setting of the boundaries of woodland SSSIs and SACs illustrates the potential pitfalls. Designated areas usually

include only the closed canopy woodland, most of which had been intensively managed for timber in the past and excluded many far more valuable areas of habitat in adjacent old wood pastures.

16

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 losing and gaining as a result of disturbance episodes. The assumption should not automatically be made that disturbance is bad and will damage plants; this will be true of some species, but 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 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 cope with natural disturbance allows you to assess the effects of these management operations. Disturbance regimes in Atlantic woodland tend to be dominated by small scale events causing death of individual trees and small groups due to wind (distribution of events influenced by poor rooting in waterlogged or shallow soils and by occurrence of disease), overturning of trees in ravines and other steep side slopes (due to leaning growth habit and poor rooting), disease especially in birch and ash, flood and landslip beside watercourses and occasionally drought. Large scale wind disturbance events occur, but the greater frequency of damaging winds in Atlantic woodlands may be offset by trees being to some extent adapted by constant exposure to high winds. Furthermore oak is relatively resistant to wind damage, although birch is not. The role of ‘phoenix’ regeneration in creating habitat for epiphytes has been noted in the field (Coppins pers. comm.) and may have been under estimated to date: this occurs where significant wind-blow ‘events’ cause mature oak trees to be blown over, which then put up regenerative growth. Fire sufficient to cause tree death is very rare, although out of control muirburn is very damaging. Refuges with long periods between disturbance events exist in old woodland in very sheltered sites with good soils (such as some types of ravine), whereas disturbance cycles elsewhere are probably shorter. All this suggests that woodland ground flora is very well adapted to small scale disturbance events at time scales ranging between short (e.g. in birch or wooded ravine sides) to quite long (many oakwoods). 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. There will always be difficult trade-off to make, at all scales from choosing individual trees in a thinning operation (see Thompson 2005), through to choosing management options for individual woods at catchment scale. Personal attitudes to timeframes and intervention: some managers prefer to rely on natural mechanisms to effect change, which typically act slowly and have relatively uncertain, although naturalistic outcomes. Others prefer to do 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 (e.g. fencing is now seen as problematic), but a greater acceptance of well thought out management intervention where benefits are proven (e.g. the thinning of Atlantic oakwoods reported by Thompson et al 2005 and controlled grazing). Few right answers: there are two management options that are universally viewed as positive: these are the removal of rhododendron and the institution of appropriate grazing.

17

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 of 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 et al. 2005, 2007). In both cases the aims will be to classify the current woodland habitat according to its conservation value and then 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 ones. It also requires determining the conservation value of the open land that new woodland might be established on (so as to avoid impacting on valuable open ground habitats).

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.

The West Coast IPA analysis will be available at www.plantlife-ipa.org when complete. Details of how to carry out FHN analyses are given in Moseley et al. 2005 and 2007. FHN maps generated using low dispersal distances5 (of perhaps 100-200 m) are most appropriate, as

5 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

18

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. 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 missing many smaller woods of high conservation value (e.g. ravine woodlands) and highlighting areas of ancient semi-natural woodland of only moderate value due to past history of intensive coppice management. Initial maps built from publicly 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 species 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=0AshyEG2UDWgycF9YRDlrbl81NGJKTElhVkpFT3FOR1E&hl=en_GB. Plantlife is completing this process through IPA mapping, which will be available once complete at www.plantlife-ipa.org. Such maps are, however, only suitable for strategic planning and not for making management decisions for individual sites. 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, ultimately, it is always necessary to carry out a ground survey. Using Peterken / Worrell management models for oakwoods One of the aims of the Peterken/Worrell management (stewardship) models was to try to ensure that full the range of different woodland management models were represented in individual catchments / regions. This involves assigning woodland blocks (i.e. groups of individual woods) or individual woodlands to Peterken/Worrell management (stewardship) models (Peterken and Worrell 2005; Quelch 2005). Information on broad management prescriptions for the different models are available that can be used to develop woodland plans (Quelch 2005). The five models (according to Quelch’s titles) are:

• Natural Reserves (minimum intervention6) • Ancient Oak Forest (long-rotation high forest) • Native Timber Stands (standard rotation high forest) • Coppice • Wood pasture

This is particularly useful for ownerships interested in management that includes an element of timber production, as the models attempt to balance conservation with productive use.

species with different dispersal capabilities.

6 Peterken Worrell titles in brackets

19

5. Site (woodland) scale management This section sets out the how managers and owners can:

• Assess the (botanical) conservation value of individual woods or parts of woods. • Identify problems affecting plant communities. • Draw up prescriptions to address the problems that can be entered into a woodland

plan, woodland grazing plan or SSSI or LBAP plan. 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 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 value of the site, then moves on to consider the woodland condition and ends by determining the management needs. The stages involved in this are summarised in figures 4 and 5 below. Step 1 Assess the value of the flora (botanical value) The aim is to distinguish areas with high botanical value from more ordinary areas of Atlantic woodland. Areas with high botanical value are distinguished by:

• Areas with diverse and complete plant communities, including the presence of characteristic or rare species or communities, especially lichens and bryophytes.

• Presence of ancient woodland with ancient woodland indicator species. • Favourable topography (ravines, watercourses) and microtopography (rocks, boulders,

crags). • Favourable gazing 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 be no more than a fairly rapid walk around the wood. This allows you to do a quick assessment of the flora 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 bryophytes and lichens. Hopefully, this process will also enhance appreciation and enjoyment of the wide botanical diversity of Atlantic woodland sites.

20

Figure 4: outline of process for determining management prescriptions for woodland flora.

3. ASSESS CONDITION OF THE WOOD Describe / assess the features of the woodland that have a bearing on plant communities – both positive and negative (grazing, woodland composition, woodland structure, regeneration etc).

1. ASSESS WOODLAND FLORA(BOTANICAL VALUE)

Draw up plant lists and determine National Vegetation Classification woodland type. Identify areas of the wood of high botanical value focusing on lichens and bryophytes.

4. WHAT ARE THE KEY PROBLEMS AND CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

PRESCRIPTIONS? Determine conservation problems and management prescriptions that address these.

2. IDENTIFY ANY PRIORITY SPECIES OR COMMUNITIES

Determine whether there are plant species / communities that should be afforded particular priority. These will usually be bryophytes and/or lichens.

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 PLANEnter prescriptions into a woodland plan, woodland grazing plan or SSSI plan.

OTHER MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS Consider the effects of management prescriptions for other objectives (productive use, recreation, grazing) on vegetation. Amend as necessary.

21

The next step is to carry out a full survey, during which plant 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 value: to identify areas with high quality plant communities, focussing mainly on lichens and bryophytes. 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 and bryophytes; and unfortunately there are currently only a small (but increasing) number of surveyors with a good knowledge of these lower plants 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 lichens and bryophytes. The approach uses 2 levels of assessment:

• Plantlife Level 1 Assessment of Botanical Value: this requires no identification of lichen and bryophyte species, but presence of habitats suitable for important lichens and bryophytes are inferred from canopy and topographic features. This is thought to be sufficient to flag up areas of potential higher botanical value. These would ideally then be assessed using the Level 2 (below) to verify the existence of the most obvious lichens and bryophytes.

• Plantlife Level 2 Assessment of Botanical Value: this requires identification of a small number of lichens and bryophytes using Plantlife identification leaflets (Acton and Griffith 2008; Rothero 2010). Most woodland /ecological surveyors willing to invest a little time in identifying characteristic lichens and bryophytes will be able to use this method.

In addition a list of characteristic plant species (vascular, bryophyte, lichens) is shown in Appendix 1 that can be used to add detail to areas identified as high botanical value. Presence of the species in these lists is further confirmation of the status of sites as high botanical value sites. Expert surveys Some owners and agents will be in a position to engage expert plant surveyors who will be able identify plants in all species groups and give a detailed picture of the value of sites. Guidance on assessments at this expert level is available (e.g. 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.

22

Figure 5: evaluation of botanical value

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.

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.

Produce vegetation map showing NVC and areas of high botanical value.

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 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.

23

Plantlife Level 1 Assessment of Botanical 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 botanical value by looking at the weighting of the 6 ticks (low, medium, high). This approach gives a very basic assessment of sites and is suitable for use by all woodland surveyors.

Box 1

Description

Attribute Canopy cover

Low canopy cover of small/young trees/shrubs

High canopy cover of small/young or mid-age trees

High canopy cover (70-90%) of older trees and shrubs

Low canopy cover of veteran trees / shrubs or old woodland /hazel scrub with frequent glades

Tree species Mainly downy birch and/or alder

Mainly oak Mainly elm, ash, hazel

Old trees Small/young recently established trees

Older trees, but still with most trees having silvery, rather than fissured, bark

Older/bigger trees, with frequent trees with fissured bark

Old / big trees with fissured bark

Presence of rocks and boulders

No boulders or crags, even terrain

Scattered, small boulders or crags on even slope

Frequent larger boulders and crags on uneven slope

Large blocky boulders and crags; hard to walk across

Ravines

No ravines Minor watercourses with gradually shelving sides

Deep gully, but no waterfall or crags

Deep ravine with waterfalls and crags

Green / brown epiphyte cover on tree boles and rocks looking like these pictures

See Image 1 below

See Image 2 below

See Image 3 below

See Image 4 below

BOTANICAL VALUE

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

24

Image 1:

Image 2:

25

Image 3:

Image 4

26

Plantlife Level 2 Assessment of Botanical 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 value by looking at the weighting of the ticks (low, medium, high). Surveyors who need help in identifying lichens and bryophytes should use leaflets available from Plantlife Scotland (Acton and Griffith 2008, Rothero 2010). This approach gives a simple but fairly effective assessment of sites and is suitable for use by all woodland/ecological surveyors. All the species mentioned here can be found in the Plantlife guides (Acton & Griffith 2008, Rothero 2010). Additional species that indicate habitat quality will be present, but for the purposes of this exercise, it is sufficient to use the lichens shown in the guides.

Box 2 Description

Bryophytes Plagiochila spinulosa group (Plantlife guide)

Not present Low abundance and restricted to unusual features

High abundance over wide range of features

Scapania gracilis Not present Low abundance and restricted to unusual features

High abundance over wide range of features

Hymenophyllum wilsonii (an honorary bryophyte in this context)

Not present Low abundance and restricted to unusual features

High abundance over wide range of features

Lichens Lobarion and Sticta species in Plantlife guide on ash, hazel, willow, rowan and old oak

Not present Low abundance and restricted to few features

High abundance over wide range of features

Crustose lichens Not present - hazel often covered in common mosses

Moderate abundance on younger smaller stems with only a few species

Frequent crustose lichens on hazel and other species (e.g. rowan and holly) with a variety of species

Species in Plantlife guide on birch, alder, oak

Dominated by common species e.g. Parmelia saxatilis, Platismatia glauca, Evernia prunastri

Any of the following species in low abund-ance and restricted to few features: Menegazzia terebrata, Parmotrema crinitum, Hypotrachyna taylorensis

Frequent presence of any of the following on trees and rocks: Menegazzia terebrata, Parmotrema crinitum, Hypotrachyna taylorensis

27

The output of this stage should be a vegetation map showing the NVC communities and indicating the botanical value of the sites (see Figure 6). Individual species and habitats of note can be shown on maps as labelled arrows. Figure 6: a hypothetical example of a site vegetation map, showing NVC communities and the botanical value of the site

Vascular species Strongly dominated by wavy hair grass and tufted hair grass

Herbs restricted to more common woodland species i.e. primrose, honeysuckle, stitchwort, wood sage, common cow-wheat

Frequent dogs mercury or sanicle

Dryopteris aemula

Nil Occasional Abundant

BOTANICAL VALUE

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

28

Step 2 Determine priority plant species/communities On sites of high botanical value, determine whether there are priority plant species or communities that management will need to focus on, usually bryophytes or lichens. This decision can be based on the presence of species marked in red on the species lists in appendix 1, plus other rare or notable species recorded in the survey. When considering the condition of the woodland and drawing up management prescriptions (step 3 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 2). These features can be split between:

• Inherent features of the woodland e.g. its topographic features, ancientness etc. • Features influenced by management e.g. age classes, canopy composition etc.

Lists should be drawn up of the features which 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.

29

Table 2: checklist of features influencing woodland condition Heading

Positive features

Negative features

1. Inherent features of woodland Representation of woodland types in landscape

• Ash woodland • Hazel woodland/scrub esp. where old

and with long site occupancy • Oak woodland where this is scarce in

catchment • Riparian woodland • High elevation woodland • Wood pasture

Site antiquity / continuity • Ancient semi-natural woodland on ASNW inventory

• Ancientness apparent from plant communities (indicator species in Crawford 2009) – although vascular plant indicators are somewhat less reliable in Atlantic woodlands

• Recent origin or planted woodland

Habitat network • Woodland part of large patch / network / corridor

• Areas of ‘deep woodland’ conditions • Valuable woodland edge areas (esp. if

focus is on lichens)

• Wood not in network, isolated by ground that might be better carrying woodland

Plant habitat • Ravines • Watercourses, waterfalls with splash

zones • Flushes • Glades • Boulders, crags • Deadwood (see below)

30

2. Features determined by past management Canopy composition • Diverse canopy with representation of

ash, elm, birch, bird cherry, goat willow, silver birch, aspen, hazel.

• Oak or ash trees gaining representation in secondary birch woodland

• Tree canopy species reflecting NVC communities and underlying soil types

• Monocultural overstorey of oak or downy birch; especially where this is common in rest of catchment

• Planted coppice oak on ash woodland sites

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

• Few old / large/ veteran trees • High density of small oak stems

resulting from stools not having been singled/thinned

• Shaded veteran trees • Dense regeneration of birch in old

wood pasture Shrubs • Presence of hazel, holly, blackthorn,

hawthorn, willows, guelder rose, elder.

• Shrub layer lacking • Hazel recently coppiced as part of

coppicing programme • Presence of excessive holly causing

shading of key lichens and bryophytes species

Tree and shrub regeneration • Presence of seedling /sapling shrubs and trees in field layer where this is desirable, eg to expand existing woodland or to diversify species or age structure

• Tree or shrub seedlings in areas of important open space e.g. around veteran trees or in glades needed to support lichens. Large areas of dense birch regeneration in areas of high botanical value woodland.

Deadwood • Significant quantities of deadwood, both standing and lying

• Old and dying trees, evidence of natural mortality and self thinning

• Little or no deadwood

Associated open space • Open space of high conservation value within/beside woodland

Grazing • Grazing/browsing at apparently sustainable levels and favourable for

• Total exclusion of browsing and grazing by deer fence

31

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

• Presence of high sheep numbers throughout year, resulting in widespread damage by trampling, poaching and localised erosion

• Stock and deer preventing seedling and sapling growth in area designated for woodland regeneration

Exotic species • Control of rhododendron, beech, sycamore or regenerating conifers in progress.

• Presence of rhododendron, beech, sycamore or regenerating conifers

• Presence of garden escapes and invasive plants

32

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 2. A simplified overview of what needs to be captured in such a categorisation is shown in table 3. This can be done if it is considered helpful to produce a map of woodland condition. Table 3: overview of categorisation into classes of woodland condition

Output at this stage should include a list of woodland condition issues for entry into a woodland plan.

Woodland condition

Grazing Composition Structure Antiquity

Very good Deer and stock numbers controlled, but not excluded.

Diverse array of 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.

Complex structure (canopy layers, age classes, gaps, deadwood) and/or structure favourable for priority plants.

Ancient woodland and /or presence of veteran trees.

Good Stock excluded. Deer at acceptable densities

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.

Some structural diversity and some areas where structure is favourable for priority plants.

Ancient or ‘long established of plantation origin’ woodland. Some old trees.

Poor Uncontrolled grazing at unacceptable levels OR All grazing totally excluded for an extended period (> 7 years)

Tree species limited in number and restricted to early successional species. Shrubs lacking. Exotic trees/shrubs present OR Thicket regeneration producing uniform dark, damp cond-itions; ivy cloaks rocks, trees & shrubs.

Simple structure and single age class.

Recent, planted or long estab-lished of plantation origin.

33

Step 4 Conservation problems and prescriptions Determine conservation problems that can be addressed by management i.e. 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 diversity • Woodland structure • Woodland composition • Tree and shrub regeneration • Deadwood • Invasive exotic plant species

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 flora need to be integrated with other management objectives for the wood. Two issues are involved:

• Consider the impacts of prescriptions for flora on other aspects of conservation 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. Amend these as necessary.

Step 6 Enter information and prescriptions into plan Enter the information on the botanical value, woodland condition, conservation problems and management prescriptions into a plan and, importantly, the accompanying maps. This can either be a woodland plan, woodland grazing plan or an SSSI management plan.

34

5.2 Management prescriptions 1. Planning issues 1.1 Safeguarding areas of high botanical value Problem: Areas with high botanical value need to be protected so as they can act as sources for species to colonise adjacent lower quality woodland. Management prescriptions: Map areas of high/very high botanical value and 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 (changes in tree/shrub cover and composition, canopy structure, canopy gaps, light regime, deadwood, invasion of exotic species etc.)

• Any small scale management activities (typically grazing, collection of firewood) that have been carried out in the wood and whether they are compatible/incompatible with the high botanical value.

Ensure the continuation of those factors that have been favourable for plant 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 demonstrable negative impacts. 1.2 Encourage the spread of woodland plants within woodland Problem: A key aim is to expand areas of high botanical value. This means careful management of adjacent woodland, so as to facilitate the expansion of areas of high botanical value in the long term (decades). Management prescriptions: Restoration zones. Set up restoration zones around areas of high botanical value where management focuses on creating conditions conducive for expansion of the woodland plants/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 sections 2-7 below. Establishment of a suitable grazing regime will often be critical. This will take many years to effect. 1.3 Expansion of woodland patch/network size Problem: Small populations of plants in small habitat patches are generally more vulnerable than larger populations. Atlantic woodlands are often fragmented with small patch/network sizes. A key priority is to increase the networks by joining smaller patches/networks together to form larger ones by creating strategically placed new woodland. Management prescriptions: Woodland expansion. Where areas of woodland of high/very high botanical 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 should be determined using a forest habitat network approach (see section 4 and guidance in Moseley at al. 2005 and 2007). Expansion should often be sought primarily by natural regeneration and

35

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. 1.4 Age diversity Problem: At a catchment scale, it is best if there is representation of a range of woodland/tree age classes, so new habitat can be recruited to replace mature woodland lost by disturbance/mortality. One of the clear continuing needs for Atlantic woodlands is to recruit areas of younger woodland, especially of ash and oak. Ideally, catchments lacking young woodland would be prioritised when planning expansion activity. This logic does not apply at the scale of single woodlands, where some even-aged areas of woodland are to be expected, especially in alder and birch woods. Management prescription: Prioritise woodland expansion. Get rough information on the age distribution of the type of woodland under consideration at catchment scale – probably observations made simply driving around in the general area would suffice. If there is little recent recruitment of younger woodland, prioritise sites within the catchment for expansion, especially high conservation value woods with valuable plant populations. 2. Grazing control 2.1 Overgrazing Problem: Grazing and browsing levels are often too high and impact negatively on woodland plants and/or prevent establishment of woodland shrubs and/or a new generation of trees and shrubs (where this is desirable). Management prescriptions: a) Controlled grazing. Further management advice: see the woodland grazing toolkit/toolbox

(Sumsion and Pollock 2006, Black & Armstrong 2009 and available at www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/RuralPriorities/Options).

b) Temporary stock or deer fencing. This 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 the objective of fencing, when it has fulfilled its purpose and the arrangements for dismantling it.

c) Individual protection of regenerating trees and shrubs. This can be useful in woodlands and wood pastures where browsing is confined to roe deer and the main requirement is to establish a new generation of scattered trees and shrubs. 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.

2.2 Total exclusion of grazing Problem: Fencing of areas to allow regeneration of trees, or as part of an exclosure for other purposes (e.g. adjacent conifer woodland), can lead to near total cessation of grazing, which is detrimental for woodland flora if it continues for more than a couple of years. However, deer fencing remains an important tool for expanding woodland in the right circumstances i.e. when other forms of grazing control are impracticable. This could be when the fence is

36

restricted to open ground beside wood, where it does not impinge on areas of higher botanical value, where its ecological benefits clearly outweigh any associated problems or when erected over smaller areas or for shorter time periods. Management prescription: Where fencing remains the best solution, try to avoid fencing larger areas of woodland than necessary and avoid impinging on areas of woodland with higher botanical value. As soon as the purpose of the fence is fulfilled, remove the fence or take action to re-admit grazing animals. Ideally the area would be made subject to a controlled grazing regime. However, this is not always practical and well targeted deer control may be a more practical solution in many cases. 3. Manipulating the woodland canopy to improve conditions for flora 3.1 Oak monocultures: tree/shrub diversity issues Problem: Low representation of other naturally occurring tree species in oak woodland due to past coppice management. 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) which would naturally carry species other than oak. • Where seed sources for other appropriate trees and shrubs exist: Search out pre-

established seedlings (e.g. ash, bird cherry, hazel) and protect from browsing with mesh stapled onto stakes. Focus on seedlings growing where canopy conditions are favourable – on ‘correct’ sites types and in canopy gaps (not immediately below mature trees). In oak monocultures, consider the need to fell individual oaks to provide light for replacement trees/shrubs, especially if the wood is being managed with small scale oak timber production as one of the aims. For further management advice, refer to thinning guidelines (Thompson et al 2005).

• Without seed sources for other appropriate trees and shrubs: Consider the same approach as above, but by planting of very small numbers of local provenance tree/shrub seedlings in appropriate locations. These will act as future seed sources.

3.2 Oak monocultures: tree size and structure issues Problem: Former coppice has a very even aged and even sized structure, and this lack of diversity can limit occurrence of niches for epiphytes. 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 small scale thinning, especially if the wood is being managed with small scale oak timber production as one of the aims. Thinning should aim to free-up larger trees and trees with good existing epiphyte communities by removing some of those adjacent to them. For further management advice, use felling guidelines in Thompson (2005).

37

3.3 Large /old open grown veteran trees Problem: Lack of recruitment of large/old/open grown veteran trees. These are especially valuable for epiphytes. Management prescriptions:

a) New woodland: Include a component of open grown trees in all new woodland. This should be at 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.

c) Establish new wood pastures: Establish areas of wood pasture by planting widely spaced trees into pasture or aim for sporadic regeneration with increased grazing levels after recruitment of young trees and shrubs. These will need to be well protected until they are beyond the vulnerable stage.

Problem: Space around open grown veteran trees in-filled by regenerated or planted trees in new woodland or on fenced sites. This shades out important epiphytes and damages the veteran trees. Management prescription: Discourage regenerating trees/shrubs and/or periodic cutting with handsaw, brushcutter or chainsaw and by 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 loss of woodland (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 where the woodland component is being lost, by protecting seedlings/saplings or instituting controlled gazing or where glades are being lost, by grazing or cutting out unwanted regeneration of trees and shrubs. 4. Woodland shrubs and scrub 4.1 Under-representation of shrubs Problem: Under-representation of shrubs in woodland, especially birch and oak woods. This can limit niches for epiphytes. Management prescription: Recruit shrubs ideally by natural colonisation using approaches outlined in 2.1 above, resorting to small scale planting only when there is no realistic hope of natural colonisation due to distance to seed sources. Note that a dense understory of shrubs would probably not favour lower plants. 4.2 Veteran hazel stands Problem: Potential loss of veteran hazel stands by inappropriate cutting / coppicing. Loss of key habitat for epiphytes, notably hazel gloves. Ancient hazel stands on the west coast may not look old, being composed of slender and medium stems and are not the result of past coppicing. Coppicing (cutting back the entire stool) should never be instated on these sites. Management prescription: Avoid coppicing hazel in Atlantic woodlands. Any coppicing, if appropriate, should be limited to selected individual stems and should only harvest a low percentage of shoots (see SNH undated). Avoid underplanting pure hazel stands with other

38

species that will eventually over top and shade them out. 4.3 Shading of lower plant communities Problem: Heavy levels of shading by some shrubs, including holly, can potentially damage bryophyte communities if they regenerate widely in an area of high botanical importance. At the same time holly can be an important element of diversity in oakwoods. Management prescription: Small scale removal of holly on key sites. Survey key sites and cut out shrubs where this necessary. 5. Deadwood Problem: Deadwood of all types is an important habitat for many lower plant species, and is typically present in insufficient quantities in Scottish woods. This is largely the result of past management practices. However, woods where timber is removed for firewood are more likely to be lacking deadwood. Management prescription: Attempt to restrict firewood collection to sites of lower botanical value. Ensure that the management plan has a statement on the amount and type of deadwood present, its value for plants and the prospects for more arriving by natural mortality 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, 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 suitable practices in terms of volumes to be harvested and retention of deadwood to ensure that firewood collection is sustainable. 6. Control of invasive non native plant species 6.1 Rhododendron ponticum Problem: Severe damage to all plant groups and habitats caused by presence and rapid expansion of Rhododendron ponticum, which casts severe shade and quickly develops into a dense monoculture. Management prescription: Use the management decision tool devised in Long and Williams (2008) and Edwards (2007) to identify appropriate control techniques, which should be part of a strategic, landscape scale management plan. On sites with priority bryophyte and lichen species and habitats still present, consider using stem treatment control techniques (Edwards 2007). On sites with dense, flowering Rhododendron ponticum, which has completely dominated the habitat, remove Rhododendron ponticum using the most appropriate technique. This could include lever and mulch (Kennedy 2009), and cutting or stem treatment (Edwards 2007). Ensure that control is part of a landscape scale management plan to prevent re-invasion from adjacent sites. Ensure that targeted rhododendron populations are responding to control and reserve contingency funding for additional control work if necessary. 6.2 Beech trees Problem: Local loss of ground flora and lichen interest as a result of shading and accumulation of leaf litter, especially on oak woodland sites. However old beech trees can diversify fungal communities and can be a reasonable substrate for some lichen species.

39

Management prescriptions: Remove regenerating beech seedlings (by hand pulling) and saplings (by hand winch or cutting and chemical treatment of stumps). Assess the overall conservation and landscape contributions of old beech trees, and potential impacts of regeneration derived from their seedfall, and institute a programme of gradual control of problem trees by felling and/or ring-barking (by chainsaw). Local consultation on the removal of large old trees or the establishment of small ‘beech tolerance areas’ can be useful as felling of mature trees is often controversial. 6.3 Sycamore Problem: Alteration of plant communities to favour the most shade tolerant species, but often allows some native plant species to thrive. Sycamore can progressively colonise ash and sometime alder woodland sites. However veteran sycamore trees can also be valuable for epiphytes. Management prescriptions: As for beech above, but being aware of the value of individual old open grown trees. 6.4 Other invasive non native vascular plants Problem: Invasive introduced plant species can often locally outcompete native ground flora species; especially in riparian areas. Species affecting Atlantic woodlands can include Fallopia japonica (Japanese knotweed), Impatiens glandulifera (Himalayan balsam) and Monbretia x. crocosmiflora. Conifer regeneration from adjacent plantations can be a problem in some areas. 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 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). 7. Conversion of conifers to native woodland, including PAWS sites Problem: Conifer plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS) or adjacent to high quality native 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 to the removal of the conifer overstorey where this is practical. For background see Thompson and Hope (2005) and for guidance see Thompson et al. (2003). 8. Movement of woodland plants into species poor isolated woodland Problem: Many woodland plants are poor at colonising recently established woodland especially on former improved agricultural land where shade tolerant grasses and weeds can offer strong competition over extended time periods. Woodland plant communities in such woodlands can remain impoverished for decades or even centuries. Where impoverished woodlands remain isolated from areas with more natural woodland plant communities, colonisation by natural means is thought to be unlikely.

40

Management prescriptions: 1. Institute a programme of woodland expansion that links the area in question into a

forest habitat network. Then over an extended time period there is then the prospect of woodland plants arriving by natural colonisation.

2. 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 basic, naturalistic woodland ground flora, plants can be translocated by planting. This should be restricted to common woodland plants where there is absolute certainty regarding the suitability of the plant species to that site. Bluebells should only be translocated where the source is confirmed native bluebell (Hyacinthoides non scripta) and then only with permission of the landowner (see www.plantlife.org.uk for more information). 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 >10) donor plants are used. This option should remain a low priority for woodland management. Plants listed on Schedule 8 (see www.jncc.gov.uk) should not be used for this purpose and require a licence from SNH.

5.3 Integration of management prescriptions Between plant groups The main issue here relates to the differing habitats requirements of lichens, which generally prefer higher light levels and can often cope with lower humidity and bryophytes that prefer high humidity and lower light levels. In practice this plays out as follows:

• Edge habitat is important for lichens and so infilling of canopy gaps by regenerating trees can be detrimental for lichens, but neutral or beneficial for bryophytes;

• Thinning or small scale felling is likely to be detrimental for bryophytes; whilst for lichens it will initially be detrimental but increased light levels can be positive in the longer term unless rank regeneration develops in the felled area and increases shade. More light reaching the forest floor in the years immediately after felling can stimulate vascular plants to flower and set seed, which can be desirable.

The main need is to be clear about the effects that woodland management operations will have on all plant groups and to ensure that the overall outcome of proposed management is positive, especially for the most important plant groups. Between prescriptions for plant conservation and other management objectives The main areas of potential conflict concern are:

• Proposals to thin trees from small scale timber production on the basis that this might damage plant communities.

• Total removal of grazing for woodland regeneration by fencing. • Conversion of wood pasture to closed canopy woodland. • Encouragement of natural regeneration on sites best kept as open ground. • Achieving regeneration of more palatable species (often best for epiphytes – e.g. ash,

hazel) whilst avoiding dense regeneration of birch.

41

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 communities. This requires that the location of new footpaths, picnic areas etc. is done sensitively to avoid any areas of ground flora of high botanical value that might be susceptible to increased pressure; and that extraction routes and roads are confined to areas of low botanical value. However increased access can be used a means of deer control, as deer will tend to avoid areas with regular access by people and dogs. 5.4 Monitoring The effects of management operations aimed at improving the condition of woodland flora should ideally be monitored. However monitoring anything but the most obvious changes quickly becomes time consuming and requires careful planning and expert input by a surveyor. 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 4). In addition, woodland creation and woodland management plans are supported under Land Managers Options.

42

Table 4: 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 Rural Priority Argyll Highland

Native woodland biodiversity

ARG08 HIG08

PAWS restoration ARG08 HIG08 Management of nature sites, favourable condition

ARG09 HIG09

Endangered species; Hazel gloves

ARG10 HIG10

Control of non-natives

ARG11 HIG11

Landscape scale restoration

ARG 12 HIG12

Low intensity grazing ARG12 HIG 12

43

References Acton, A. and Griffiths, A. 2008. Lichens of Atlantic Woodlands. Guide 1: lichens on ash, hazel, willow, rowan and old oak. Guide 2: lichens on birch, alder and oak. Plantlife Scotland, Stirling. Anderson, S. 2002. Identifying Important Plant Areas. Plantlife International, Salisbury. Averis, B. 2001. The effects of woodland management on bryophytes and lichens in the Western Highlands. Scottish Natural Heritage contract RASD/133/96AWEB. Averis, A.B.G. and Coppins, A.M. 1998. Bryophytes, lichens and woodland management in the western Highlands. Report to Scottish Natural Heritage. Black and Armstrong (2010) http://www.forestry.gov.uk/woodlandgrazingtoolbox Coppins, A.M. and Coppins, B.J. 2002. Indices of Ecological Continuity for Woodland Epiphytic Lichen Habitats in the British Isles. British Lichen Society. Coppins, B.J., and Coppins, A.M. 2005. Lichens – The Biodiversity Value of Western Woodlands. Bot. Journal Scot. 57, 141-153 Coppins A.M, Acton, A.M., Douglass, J., Holden, E.M., Servant, G. and Genney, D. 2008. Hazel Gloves fungus (Hypocreopsis rhododendri) Site Assessment and Awareness Project. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness 41pp. Couthard, 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. Forest Enterprise. 2002. Life in the Deadwood. Forest Enterprise, Edinburgh. Fraser M. and Winterbottom, S. 2008. Identifying and mapping boundaries for Important Plant Areas: Scotland’s West Coast Important Plant Area for Atlantic Woodland. www.plantlife.org.uk Harmer, R, Kerr, G and Thompson, R. (in press) Management of native broadleaved woodlands. Forestry Commission Scotland handbook. Stationery Office, Edinburgh. Kennedy, D. 2009. Lever and mulch, a day in the life of. Reforesting Scotland 39, 20-21. Long, D. and Williams, J 2007. Rhododendron ponticum: impact on lower plant and fungi communities on the west coast of Scotland. www.plantlife.org.uk Moseley, D.G., Ray, D., and Bryce, J. 2005. Forest Habitat Network for Atlantic Oakwoods in Highland Region. Bot. Journal Scot. 57, 197-200. Moseley, D.G. Worrell R, Black R, Ray D. 2007. A forest habitat network approach to directing native woodland restoration and expansion on the Argyll islands, Scotland. In: 25 Years of Landscape Ecology: Scientific Principles in Practice. Proceedings of the 7th IALE World Congress, Wageningen, The Netherlands, July 2007. Eds: R.G.H. Bunce, R.H.G. Jongman, L. Hojas & S. Weel. Peterken, G.F. and Worrell, R. 2005. Conservation management of the Loch Sunart oak woodland SAC and the potential for supporting rural development Commissioned report Scottish Natural Heritage, Fort William. JNCC, Plantlife, Royal Botanic Garden Kew. 2004. Plant Diversity Challenge: the UK’s response to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. JNCC, Peterborough. Quelch, P. 2005. The Sunart Oakwoods – A guide to their sustainable management. Highland Birchwoods, Munlochy. Rodwell, J. and Patterson, G. 1994. Creating Native Woodlands. Forestry Commission Bulletin 112. London.

44

Rothero, G.P. 2005. Oceanic Bryophytes in Atlantic Oakwoods. Bot. Journal Scot. 57, 135-140. Rothero G. P. 2010. Bryophytes of Atlantic woodlands. Guides 1 and 2. Plantlife Scotland, Stirling. Scottish Natural Heritage. 2008. Atlantic hazel: Scotland’s special woodland – advisory information. Available from Dave Genny, SNH, Inverness. Scottish Natural Heritage Ancient Woodland Inventory. Scottish Natural Heritage. Inverness. Sumsion, L. and Pollock, M. 2006. Woodland Grazing Toolkit. Argyll and Bute Local Biodiversity Partnership. Thompson, R.N. 2004 Predicting site suitability for natural colonisation: upland birchwoods and native pinewoods in northern Scotland. FC Information Note 54. Edinburgh. Thompson, R.N. 2005. Thinning in Atlantic oakwoods – Assessing options at a stand scale. Highland Birchwoods, Munlochy. Thompson, R.N. and Hope. J.C.E. 2005. Restoring Planted Ancient Woodland sites – Assessment, Silviculture and Monitoring. Bot. Journal Scot. 57, 211-227. 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. Watling, R. 2005. The fungi of Scottish western oakwoods. Bot. Journal Scot. 57, 155-165. Worrell, R. 1996. The Boreal Forests of Scotland. Forestry Commission Technical Paper 14. Edinburgh.

45

Appendix 1: Easily identified species indicating sites of high botanical value Recording the presence / absence or frequencies of these species provides useful additional information detail on botanical value. Species highlighted in red are particularly valuable. 1a. Oak-Birch woodland W11 and W17

Vascular plants Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts)

Lichens

English Latin Shrubs Woodland floor Woodland floor

Hazel Corylus avellana Rhytidiadelphus loreus

Icmadophila ericetorum

Holly Ilex acquifoluem Juniper Juniperis

communis

Dicranum majus Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Herbs Loeskobryum brevirostre

Peltigera spp. (Dog lichens)

Wood anemone

Anemone nemorosa

Small, crustose lichens are important components to the habitat

Honeysuckle Lonicera periclynum

Rhytidiadelphus loreus

Rocks and tree boles

Common Cowwheat

Mellampyrum pratense

Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus

Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Wood sage Teucrium scorodania

Hylocomiastrum umbratum

Sphaerophorous globosus (a coral lcichen)

Blaeberry Vaccinium myrtillus

Rocks and tree boles

Platismatia glauca (Frilly lettuce)

Primrose Primula vulgaris, Isothecium myosuroides var.myosuroides

Peltigera spp. (Dog lichens)

Slender St Johnswort

Hypericum pulcrum

Scapania gracilis

Sticta spp. (more base-rich woodland)

Wild Hyacynth Hyacynthoides non-scripta

Plagiochila spinulosa Hypotrachyna spp.

Narrow leaved helliborine

Cephelanthera longifolia

Ferns

Plagiochila punctata Heterodermia obscurata (porcelain lichen

Lady fern Athyrium felix-femina

Plagiochila killarniensis

Small, crustose lichens are important components to the habitat

Hard fern Blechnum spicant Plagiochila heterophylla

Rocks by burns and in ravines

46

Broad buckler fern

Dryopteris dilitata

Adelanthus decipiens Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Male fern Dropteris felix-mas

Plagiochila exigua

Peltigera spp. (Dog lichens)

Mountain/ lemon scented fern

Thelypteris limbosperma

Rocks by burns and in ravines

Degelia spp

Hay scented bucker fern

Dryopteris aemula

Thamnobryum alopecurum

Small, crustose lichens are important components to the habitat

Wilsons filmy fern

Hymenophyllum wilsonii

Hyocomium armoricum

Epiphytes

Hygrohypnum eugyrium

Hypotrachyna spp.

Lejeunea patens Lobaria spp. (at least one sp.) Jubula hutchinsiae Degelia atlantica and/or D.

plumbea Radula aquilegia Usnea spp. (twigs & trunks) Epiphytes patches Ochrolechia or

Pertusaria spp. Ulota spp. Cetrelia olivetorum (speckled

sea-storm) Zygodon spp. Sticta spp Radula complanata Menegazzia terebrata (Tree

flute) Frullania tamarisci Pseudocyphellaria spp.

(Specklebellies? Plagiochila punctata Small, crustose lichens are

important components to the habitat

Scapania gracilis Lejeunea spp. Plagiochila exigua Leptoscyphus

cuneifoliu

47

1b. Ash woodland W9

Vascular plants Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts)

Lichens

English Latin Shrubs Woodland floor Woodland floor

Hazel Corylus avellana Dicranum majus Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Hawthorn Cretaegus monogyna

Eurhynchium striatum Peltigera spp. (Dog lichens)

Bird cherry Prunus padus, Loeskobryum brevirostre

Small, crustose lichens are, important components to the habitat

Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus

Rocks and tree boles

Wych elm Ulmus glabra Rocks and tree boles Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Herbs Homalothecium sericeum

Peltigera spp. (at least two spp.)

Bugle Ajuga reptans Isothecium alopecuroides

Leptogium spp. (Jelly-skin lichens)

Wood anemone

Anemone nemorosa

Plagiochila punctata Lobaria spp. (at least two spp.)

Enchanters nightshade

Circaea lutetiana,

Plagiochila spinulosa Sticta spp. (Stinky stictas)

Meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria

Scapania gracilis Hypotrachyna spp.

Wood cranesbill

Geranium sylvaticum

Plagiochila exigua Pseudocyphellaria spp. (Specklebellies)

Wood and water avens

Geum spp. Plagiochila killarniensis

Small, crustose lichens are important components to the habitat

Dogs mercury Mercurialis perennis,

Rocks by burns and in ravines

Rocks by burns and in ravines

Yellow pimpermel

Lysimachia nemorum

Hygrohypnum eugyrium

Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Primrose Primula vulgaris Lejeunea patens Peltigera spp. (Dog lichens) Sweet woodruff

Galium aparine Platyhypnidium riparioides

Sticta spp. (stinky stictas)

Sanicle Sanicula europaea

Thamnobryum alopecurum

Degelia atlantica and/or D. plumbea

Jubula hutchinsiae Lobaria spp.

Ferns Radula aquilegia Sphaerophorous globosus (a coral lichen)

48

Lady fern Athyrium feix-femina,

Epiphytes

Pannaria conoplea and/or P. rubiginosa

Male fern Dryopteris felix-mas,

Frullania tamarisci

Small, crustose lichens are important components to the habitat

Broad buckler fern

Dryopteris dilitata

Plagiochila punctata Epiphytes

Wilson’s filmy fern

Hymenophyllum wilsonii

Radula complanata Lobaria spp. (at least 2 spp. present)

Scapania gracilis

Degelia atlantica and/or D. plumbea

Ulota spp. Leptogium spp. (more than one sp.)

Zygodon spp. Pannaria conoplea and/or P. rubiginosa

Lejeunea spp. Sticta spp. (Stinky stictas) Plagiochila exigua Peltigera spp. (more than

one sp.) Nephroma laevigatum Pseudocyphellaria

spp.(Specklebellies) Small, crustose lichens are

important components to the habitat

49

1c. Alder woodland W7

Vascular plants Mosses and liverworts (bryophytes)

Lichens

English Latin Shrubs Woodland floor Woodland floor

Bird Cherry Prunus padus Dicranum majus Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Guelder rose Viburnum opulus Loeskobryum brevirostre

Peltigera spp. (Dog lichens)

Herbs Rhytidiadelphus loreus

Small, crustose lichens are, important components to the habitat

Wild garlic Allium ursinum Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus

Rocks and tree boles

Bugle Ajuga reptans Rocks and tree boles Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Marsh thistle Circium palustre Isothecium myosuroides var.myosuroides

Peltigera spp. (Dog lichens)

Golden saxifrage

Chrysosplenium oppositifolium

Plagiochila killarniensis (more base-rich woodland

Platismatia glauca (Frilly lettuce)

Marsh hawksbeard

Crepis paludosa Plagiochila punctata Hypotrachyna spp.

Meadow sweet

Filipendula ulmaria

Plagiochila spinulosa Hypogymnia physodes (tree rags)

Wood avens Geum urbanum Scapania gracilis Leptogium spp. (Jelly-skin lichens)

Yellow pimpernell

Lysimachia nemorum

Adelanthus decipiens Sticta spp.

Water mint Mentha aquatica,

Plagiochila exigua Small, crustose lichens are important components to the habitat

Marsh Marigold

Ranunculus repens

Plagiochila heterophylla

Rocks by burns and in ravines

Valerian Valeriana officinalis

Rocks by burns and in ravines

Cladonia spp. (Horn & Pixie-cup lichens)

Peltigera spp. (Dog lichens) Ferns Hyocomium

armoricum Lobaria spp.

Lady fern Athyrium feix-femina

Hygrohypnum eugyrium

Sticta spp.

Lejeunea patens Small, crustose lichens are

50

important components to the habitat

Thamnobryum alopecurum

Epiphytes

Jubula hutchinsiae Lobaria spp. Radula aquilegia Hypotrachyna spp. Epiphytes Degelia atlantica and/or D.

plumbea Frullania tamarisci Sticta spp. (Stinky stictas) Plagiochila punctata Heterodermia obscurata Scapania gracilis Menegazzia terebrata (Tree

flute) Ulota spp. Small, crustose lichens are

important components to the habitat

Leptoscyphus cuneifolius

Plagiochila exigua

51

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 Scotland@plantlife.org.uk

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 and Wales © May 2010