This  talk  –  What  are  we  restoring  PAWS  to?  

•  Briefly  –  the  value  of  ASNW  and  impact  of  PAWS  •  Why  restoraAon  to  site-­‐naAve  species  maCers  –  using  example  of  ash  

•  Are  site-­‐naAve  species  always  the  best  choice?  –  NNR  study  

•  What  do  the  people  acAvely  restoring  PAWS  think?  –  results  of  a  quesAonnaire    

Natural  England’s  AW  remit  •  Custodian  of  the  Ancient  Woodland  Inventory  

(Predecessor  bodies  responsible  for  developing  the  concept  of  and  recording  ancient  woodland)  

•  Get  involved  in  cases  where  development  plans  impact  ancient  woodland  

•  Designate  woodland  SSSIs  &  provide  management  advice  (60k  ha  of  ancient  woodland  in  SSSI)  

•  Agri-­‐environment  schemes  -­‐    £  &  advice  to  woodland  owners    (40k  ha  of  ancient  woodland  under  HLS  agreement)    

•  Direct  management  of  5k  ha  of  ancient  woodland  on  our  NNRs    

Natural  England’s  AW  remit  

Today’s  woodlands  

•  ASNW  total  is  213,000  ha.  48,700  ha  of  which  is  SSSI  (23%)  

•  PAWS  total  is  151,500  ha.  11,500  ha  of  which  is  SSSI  (7.5%)  

•  Source:  Natural  England’s  ancient  woodland  inventory;  Forestry  Commission’s  NaAonal  Forest  Inventory  

 

Where  are  the  PAWS?  •  Area  of  PAWS  

in  each  Natural  Character  Area  

0  -­‐  452  ha  496  -­‐  1423  ha  1512  -­‐  3030  ha  3483  -­‐  5251  ha  8126  -­‐  9391  ha  

Value  of  ASNW  and  impact  of  PAWS  •  Ancient  semi-­‐natural  woodlands  comprised  of  (site-­‐)  

naAve  trees  &  shrubs;  “semi”  –  as  they  have  been  modified  through  human  intervenAon  to  varying  degrees  by:    

§  fragmentaAon-­‐  loss  of  surrounding  woods      §  loss  of  ‘keystone’  species  (beaver,  wolf,  wild  ox,  wild  boar,  lynx),  and  near  total  loss  of  riverine  and  treeline  woods  

§  1000  years  of  management  –  tree  species  selecAon  and  structural  change  

§  species  introducAons  (eg  muntjac;  livestock;  grey  squirrels)    

§  polluAon  –  spray  drij  /nitrogen  deposiAon/  diffuse  water  polluAon  from  agriculture  

§  climate  change  impacts  and  tree  diseases    Ancient woodland indicator: Herb-Paris

Yet  ASNW  are  MASSIVELY  important!  ExcepAonally  rich  in  wildlife  –    many  rare  species  and  habitats  25%  of  all  priority  species    -­‐  lots  we  don’t  yet  know  about  in  soils  and  canopies  

Surviving  geneAc  material  and  features  from  natural  forests  

Reservoirs  from  which  wildlife  can  spread  into  new  woods  

Integral  part  of  historic  landscapes  

Wealth  of  historic    and  archaeology  features  protected  from  culAvaAon  

Refuge  for  wildlife  and  ecological  stepping  stones  through  landscapes  

Provide  sense  of  place  and  inspiraAon  for  art  and  culture    

Provide  a  wide  range  of  forest  ecosystem  products  and  services  of  value  to  society  

Ojen  undisturbed    geology  and    soils  –  a  record  of  ecological    archaeology  

 PAWS  replace  the  naAve  tree  cover  with  non-­‐naAve  species  (ojen  conifers)  that  significantly  alter  the  ecology/  func6oning  of  these  woods.    

NaAve  wildlife  cannot  usually  meet    its  habitats  requirements  on  introduced  tree  species    -­‐  different  phenology    and  other  traits  

Establishing  plantaAon  trees  can  damage  naAve  trees,  soils,  hydrology,  ground  flora,  shrubs  and  archaeological  features        

PlantaAon  trees  ojen  cast  heavier  shade    affecAng  ground  flora,  shrub  layer  with  knock-­‐on  habitat  impacts  

Conifer  liCer  and  root  systems  can  change  soil  biochemistry,  fungi,  and  soil  funcAons  

Loss  of  relaAonship  between  landforms,  soils,  landscape  history  and  woodland  cover  

Ojen  even-­‐aged  monocultures  replacing  more  diverse  ecosystems    

But,  someAmes  ancient  woodland  remnants  survive    

Specialist  ancient  woodland  ground  flora  –  in  rides,  glades,    stream  sides  and  wetlands  

Veteran  trees  ,    ancient  boundary  pollards,  old  coppice  stools  

Woodland  archaeology  –  wood  banks,  charcoal  pits  etc  

Undisturbed  soil  profiles,  soil  fungi  and  other  organisms  

ScaCered  naAve  trees  and  shrubs  

Other  specialist  woodland    taxa  like  birds,  bats,  dormice,  lichens,  inverts    

Soil  seed  bank  

What  are  we  restoring  PAWS  to?  •  At  least  80%  site-­‐na)ve  species  

•  Why  does  site-­‐naAve  maCer  so  much?    –  Site-­‐naAve  trees  have  their  own  associated  species  and  func)ons  in  an  ecosystem  –  purng  them  back  will  help  ecosystem  recovery  

For  example:  ASH...    

 

 

 •  Leaves  fall  without  nutrients  being  taken  back  into  the  tree  

•  Therefore  high  nutrient  content  of  leaf  liCer  •  AND  LiCer  highly  degradable  –  nutrients  readily  released  and  made  available  to  other  plants  

•  Leaf  decomposi)on  rate  F.  excelsior>Corylus  avellana>Acer  pseudoplantanus  >  Quercus  sp.>Fagus  sylva6ca  

   

Eg  Ash  -­‐  Ecological  funcAon:  nutrient  cycling  

Results from a study by James Hutton Institute for JNCC, NE, SNH, NRW, NIEA, FC

Atmosphere  

Tree  

Mineral  soil    Burrowing  invertebrates  

Soil  acidificaAon  

Forest  floor    build  up  

Leaf  li6er  decomposi)on    

Microbial  community  

Forest  growth   Filtering  Leaf  liCer    quality   N2  fixaAon    

Atmospheric  deposiAon  

Forest  floor    

Leaf  liCer  decomposiAon  rate  in  turn  affects  many  other  ecosystem  processes:  

2.  Ash-­‐associated  species  -­‐  numbers  Group

High & obligate

Frequent CosmopolitanUses -

importance unknown

Bird 7 5Bryophyte 6 30 10 12Fungi 30 38Invertebrate 53 36 19 131Lichen 17 231 294 6Mammal 1 2 25

Total 106 343 330 174

Level of association with F. excelsior

Eg  Ash  –  has  many  ‘associated  species’  

What  use  do  ash-­‐associated  species  make  of  other  trees?    

•  Some tree alternatives only “good” for certain groups of ash-associated species

•  Conifers generally not “good” for ash-associated species

•  Oak “good” for many ash-associated species

What  are  we  restoring  PAWS  to?  •  At  least  80%  site-­‐naAve  species  But,  what  about..  •  Sites  with  limited  naAve  species  as  a  result  of  past  selecAon?  •  Future  resilience  of  tree  species  at  a  site?    

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

Suita

bility  to  site  

(4  -­‐  Ve

ry  Suitable;  1  -­‐  Unsuitable)  

Wyre  Forest  1  Suitability  2013   Suitability  2050   Suitability  2080  

Grid  Ref  SO763761  NVC  Type  W10/W16    

What  are  we  restoring  PAWS  to?  •  CreaAng  suitable  structure  for  woodland  species  

% of the 257 ‘Section 41’ species associated with different woodland habitats

•  To  find  out  how  much  PAWS  restoraAon  has  been  achieved,  how  much  is  underway  and  how  much  is  planned  by  2020.    

•  To  find  out  what  are  some  of  the  challenges  facing  those  aCempAng  to  restore  PAWS  so  we  can  start  to  address  these  as  part  of  the  Biodiversity  2020  delivery  plan  

PAWS  quesAonnaire  for  the  England  Woodland  Biodiversity  Group.  Aims:  

Who  responded?    

•  30  responses  

•  20  –  private  woodland  owners  or  agents  represenAng  clients  

•  10  –  public  sector  and  chariAes  including  –  Forest  Enterprise  –  NaAonal  Trust  – Woodland  Trust  –  NaAonal  Parks  –  RSPB  –  Natural  England  

How  much  PAWS  was  represented  in  the  survey?  

•  58,126  ha  (FE  =  44k  ha)  

•  10  public  sector  and  charity  bodies  =  57,626  ha  

•  Private  sector  =  500  ha    

In  England  •  ASNW  total  is  213,000  ha    

•  PAWS  total  is  151,500  ha    

Therefore  •  Survey  picked  up  about  40%  of  all  PAWS  

What  PAWS  restoraAon  is  done,  underway  or  planned?  

*  FE  figures  not  available  –  will  be  underesAmate.  **May  include  some  double  counAng.    

Total  PAWS  covered  in  survey?  

Restored  by  2011?  

Underway  now?  

Plans  to  begin  restora)on  before  2020?  

58,126  ha**   884  ha*   127  ha*   11,270  ha**  

Top  6  Organis-­‐a)on  

Total  PAWS  owned  

Restored  by  2011?  

Underway  now?  

Plans  to  begin  before  2020?  

FE  England   44,000   ?   ?   4,000  [SDNP*   6,638   50   4,200]  Nat  Trust   4,500   500   1,000  Wdld  Trust   1,900   230   1,670**  Nat  Engld   405   65   40   260  RSPB   115   5   22  

*  This  is  all  PAWS  within  SDNP  captured  by  NP  management  plan  objecAves  **Does  not  include  Woodland  Trust  HLF  project  aimed  at  private  owners    

“Lack of local markets and supply chains is a challenge - especially lack of markets for timber from many site-native tree species”

“Chalara reduces the options for reduced-cost conifer replacement. Could use ‘honorary natives’ to spread future risk . Species that can pay their way will be more likely to result in well-managed woodland.”

“Stop grants to landowners who cannot demonstrate grey squirrel control”

“We will need to work to create markets and build skills in the sector to make the restoration process economic in the long term”

“Stop the FC selling off timber at below cost and undermining the sale price of wood at all stages”

“An ongoing payment like SFP for ecosystem services could replace the income from commercial conifers”

Also - “more cooperative action”

restoration techniques

PAWS restoration

PAWS restoration products

native woodland products

provided by PAWS restoration

Conclusions  

•  Restoring  site-­‐naAve  tree  species  really  maCers  

•  Restoring  structural  features  is  also  important  

•  To  achieve  long-­‐term  resilience  we  may  have  to  consider  other  tree  species  

•  People  are  restoring  PAWS,  but...  

•  There  are  some  very  significant  challenges  which  may  reduce  the  rate  and/  or  quality  of  PAWS  restoraAon  

•  Key  issues  are    –  finding  markets  for  mixed  naAve  broadleaves  

–  deer  &  squirrel  management