Restoration of Sweet Chestnut coppice

[Billy]

Hi,
I like it here, in the lions den.

I joined this forum because it was associated with Butterfly Conservation, the name of my enemy. I came to pick a fight or to go away with a greater understanding. My mind is open to the idea that I may be wrong.

I own a small plot of amenity woodland in East Sussex. It is a former Sweet Chestnut coppice with Oak standards. Some years of neglect have allowed native trees to gain a foot hold and there is now a lot of Birch, Sallow, Hornbeam and Hazel in the wood.

Locally, Butterfly Conservation are leading the drive for the restoration of the Sweet Chestnut coppice cycle and there's the rub.

Coppicing is a great idea but all coppiced woodlands are not the same and in Kent (where I live) and East Sussex much of the coppice is Sweet Chestnut. It is not a native tree and has almost no wildlife value.

Please let me show you some pictures.

Access to the wood is via a way leave and this first picture is an area of native woodland {Sallow and Alder) cleared to protect the power lines. This picture was taken on April 24th.



This is what it looks like today.



No trick photography involved, there are places where it is almost impossible to push through because the regrowth is so dense and it is rich with wild flowers.

In complete contrast, this is a picture of an area of Sweet Chestnut coppice taken on April 4th.



This is what it looks like today.



Nothing lives here except Sweet Chestnut.

There is good reason for this. Sweet Chestnut has very large leaves which form an almost permanent leaf litter, they contain toxins that inhibit the growth of other plants. They also stop sunlight from reaching the forest floor inhibiting germination and the canopy closes over very quickly.

This is a non native tree with very good self interest and survival instincts but it's survival depends on man's interference.

A regular coppice cycle (20 years or less) means that native trees don't get the chance to mature and set seed, that coupled with the concept of coppicing (The tree is cut close to the ground but the root system remains intact, sometimes for hundreds of years, giving the regrowth a tremendous boost of energy) maintains the Sweet Chestnut in pole position. But it does need man's constant attention to defy nature.

Sweet Chestnut doesn't offer much to butterflies or moths. By contrast the mature Sallow and Birch that are removed by the process are tremendously important to these species. This is the large scale destruction of moth and butterfly habitat and so why is it Butterfly Conservation who are promoting it and why do I have to fight with them. That is just bizarre.

It is worth looking at what the RSPB are up to. They are another conservation body, they manage a large Sweet Chestnut coppice at Blean Woods in Kent and they are killing the Chestnut and replanting with native trees because they say Sweet Chestnut has little wild life value. They need butterflies and moths for the larvae, to feed their birds.

It is OK, here in the lions den. Thank you for listening and maybe you can help me to understand. I hope that you appreciate that I care passionately about my animals.

I have contacted my local Butterfly Conservation manager. I asked for his help to stop people removing the Honeysuckle from the woods (a traditional coppice practice) and he was able to stop it. Then I said about the importance of Birch to moth species and could he help me there? No.

I don't really understand what Butterfly conservation are up to but native trees are best for native wildlife.

Let's be friends.

Billy

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Billy,

So - if you know that Butterfly Conservation are involved in managing this site, then do you know what they're managing it for? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but the first pair of photos, while rich in flora, is completely useless for certain woodland species, such as the Pearl-bordered Fritillary which needs a fairly open forest floor, but with some ground vegetation and, of course, violets (the foodplant). I'd go so far as to say that your second pair of shots is closer to what this specific species needs.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Zonda]

Better than Rhododendrons.

[Billy]

Hi Pete,

Yes, they say they are specifically managing it for the Pearl Bordered Fritillary but that is a county wide plan. There are not any here. We do have a broad way leave providing access to the woods and dog violet grows there amid the bracken. For two years I have been looking for any sign of the PBF but without luck.

I thought the habitat would be ideal, we have bracken, dog violet and power lines. We don't have a lot of dog violet though and to sustain a community we would need that. We do have plenty of bugle. The fact is there just are no PBF's here.

Dog violet wont grow in one of these sweet chestnut coppices, it is such an outside chance.

You have got to get a load of things together. You have got to have the food plant, you have also got to have a source of nectar. PBF's live in communities, one flower wouldn't be enough, it has got to be a lot.

It can't happen because the Sweet Chestnut canopy forms too quickly, if an isolated community of PBF's were able to establish themselves they would quickly die.

In the absolutely ridiculous pretension of establishing the Pearl Bordered Fritillary, Butterfly Conservation are destroying everything else.

Moths depend on trees, native trees. I am fond of my moths.

Look The PBF is a priority species, that means that there is money to be put into it. I didn't step into the lions den thinking that you were lambs. So it is OK to destroy important habitat to raise funds?

This is where I come from, The larvae in my trees are important, the tiny hyphae of my fungi are important to me and so are my wild flowers. Everything is interconnected.

Sorry to be such a pain in the donkey. I want you to stop though, because it isn't a game.

[Zonda]

Well a habitat that suits one species, may not suit another. I think diversity is the thing. I heard this today from a butterfly expert, and it applies to all wildlife. You cut some, and you leave some. No one species is more important than another.

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Billy,

First off - let me point out that UK Butterflies is not Butterfly Conservation. So asking "us" to stop doesn't count for much - unless you want me to close the website down

More seriously - let me try and answer some of your other comments.

Yes, they say they are specifically managing it for the Pearl Bordered Fritillary but that is a county wide plan. There are not any here.

Understood. In fact, there are quite a few sites where the now-extinct species have no hope of recolonising due to the fragmented nature of Britain's countryside. Again - I don't know any details - but BC may be planning a reintroduction from a donor population, and what you're seeing is the site being prepared.

Dog violet wont grow in one of these sweet chestnut coppices, it is such an outside chance.

That's ok. You really need to understand the ecology of the Pearl-bordered Fritillary before you can jump to the conclusion that this is a problem. For example, areas for nectaring, courting and egg-laying can be completely different.

... Sweet Chestnut canopy forms too quickly, if an isolated community of PBF's were able to establish themselves they would quickly die.

Right. Which is why this site is being "managed" like it used to be - using coppicing. Of course, if the site were only coppiced once, it's going to revert back to what was there before!

In the absolutely ridiculous pretension of establishing the Pearl Bordered Fritillary

See above. I think you need to open your mind to learning more about the requirements of this species before jumping to conclusions. Which, as it happens, is how you started this thread

I didn't step into the lions den thinking that you were lambs.

This isn't a lions' den, Billy. This is a forum where rational people can have rational discussion. The group you're interacting with here are "keen amateurs" with hundreds of volunteers who are as passionate as you about conserving what we have.

So it is OK to destroy important habitat to raise funds?

Again - you're jumping to an awful lot of conclusions. You assume the habitat is being destroyed. You're assuming the habitat is important. And you're assuming that the only reason that this is happening is to "raise funds".

All in all - it seems to me that you're jumping to an awful lot of conclusions and perhaps you should try and understand what's going on first. My experience is that Butterfly Conservation works very closely with other conservation organisations to ensure that they all work together to achieve the best result. You've yet to convince me that this isn't the case.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Zonda]

I'd second that. There is a bigger picture.

[Dave McCormick]

As I have learned, there are many reasons why things are done, with conservation its usually not for a bad reason, there is always logic behind why something is done.

I know some members of BCNI (Butterfly Conservation Northern Ireland) and the forestry commision and there is a forest near my house that has an area that has holly blues present. It is overgrown with mostly bramble and has a lot of holly bluses and some ivy. Now I was worried that, the National Trust here wanted to get rid of the bramble and maybe let some of it grow to let bluebell in and I thought this act would harm the holly blues there. One member of BCNI told me it would be fine and if it was done at the right time of year, the butterflies would be harmed.

I also mentioned the moths present there too and if the area was cleared like that, I just got lots of wildflower seeds for some of the moths/butterflies that feed on certian species that would be removed like willowherb and they grew back this year. There is a few dead trees there, but they have been left as is so they can rot up and prov ide the ground the nutrients for any future plants/trees to survive.

I know what its like to manage woodland and even if you see negative effects, the results are usually the opposite if done right and if so, the species that exist there should not dwindle or dispappear unless their foodplants are then gone from the clearing and regrowing of plants, but usually this isn't the case, the plants usually start coming back, as you have shown Billy.

Better than Rhododendrons.

Sure David Bellamy would agree with you there! I think he said once to someone who had a query about them, was to cut them back if they grew to big, so far back, that there is barely roots left.

[Billy]

My humblest apologies Pete. I did make a lot of mistakes and you quite rightly pointed them out. I also think that this is an excellent site.

Back to the debate. Butterfly Conservation are not managing a specific site as far as I am aware. They are running a local campaign to promote the restoration of sweet chestnut coppice generally.

This involves the destruction of a lot of native trees and replacing them with a barren alien environment. To work with this you have got to believe that butterflies and Moths don't actually require native food plants because they are taking them away.

If you can't believe that then all that I can see is the large scale destruction of habitat.

I want to achieve a better understanding. The very last thing that I want is for someone from BC to come on and say, "Yeah that's what we do, we destroy moth habitat". of course they don't, not intentionally.

Now I know that there are some very intelligent and well educated people who visit this site. People much smarter than myself, so help me to understand this.

Coppicing is a great idea with huge benefits to wild life but all coppice is not the same. Sweet Chestnut is non native and it doesn't bring the same benefits as for example Willow or Hazel coppice.

So the questions in my mind are:

Does restoring Sweet Chestnut coppice actually involve removing native trees and shrubs?

Does this affect the local Moth and Butterfly population?

Do the overall benefits outweigh the loss of habitat issue?

I just have to address that last point. I can see that providing habitat for an at risk species whilst reducing habitat for more common species is a valid conservation policy. I am not quite so ill informed on the ecology of the PBF as has been suggested, I have spent two years reading up on them, though only as a lay man and it has been a dream of mine to find them here. A dream that I had to give up this May, there just isn't any sign of them being present on this site and no reports from this area. I understand that they feed and breed in different locations and locally we do have a good stock of nectar plants but for that species to benefit from the creation of a Sweet Chestnut coppice you would have to at least get a food plant to colonise the area. It would have to do so in some abundance and in a relatively short time. As soon as the canopy closes over the colony would die off.

I am having trouble seeing the overall benefit.
Billy

[Pete Eeles]

My humblest apologies Pete. I did make a lot of mistakes and you quite rightly pointed them out. I also think that this is an excellent site.

No worries

Butterfly Conservation are not managing a specific site as far as I am aware.

Ah!

They are running a local campaign to promote the restoration of sweet chestnut coppice generally. This involves the destruction of a lot of native trees and replacing them with a barren alien environment.

I must admit, I find it hard to believe that BC would promote this. Are you absolutely sure that this is happening, and that this is being encouraged by BC? Who have you spoken with - perhaps we can reach out to them to get some answers?

As for your other questions - I can't answer them I'm afraid since I don't know what "restoration" or coppicing of Sweet Chestnut actually entails.

Cheers,

- Pete

[NickB]

I refer this conversation to the following English Nature Report: R627 - The ecological impact of sweet chestnut coppice silviculture on former ancient, broadleaved woodland

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com ... 0904e6dc24

The same in microcosm happens on features like the Fleam and Devils Dykes nr Cambridge. They are cleared of trees (as Scheduled Ancient Monuments) and scrub - good for chalkland butterflies (but they need constant work to keep them clear of clematis and bindweed and other shrubby growth) - but bad for generalist butterflies and the birds and other animals that live in the scrub! There are always winners and loosers - and yes, it is often necessary to destroy some habitats in making others.

I have some sympathies with your situation - but, if it is part of a plan, it is unlikely to put any other species under threat of extinction and may extend the number of sites at which PBF may flourish if re-introduced and also Heath Fritillary (but any standard with coppice would do ....) The reason that many fritillaries are under pressure is that coppicing stopped pretty-well after WW2 and their habitats went. So, our farming was responsible for stopping coppicing; now restarting is simply restoring the cycle that was broken (Sweet Chestnut was used for hop poles, etc). I know that Sweet Chestnut are not native and have a toxic leaf litter; but in suppressing other growth it may just give violets the chance to grow that in a native wood they would not have.
N

[m_galathea]

Coppiced woodland now makes up only a very small amount of our woods. I think it is important for us to try to hold on to species which require it and not to let them disappear. We have lots of woods which receive little or no management, these are often best for our wildlife but a balance must be struck. In the same way as we want each wood to be diverse (small scale), it is good to have a countryside which is diverse on larger scales, and this means having woodland of different types.

One of my local woods in Sussex is a highly managed Sweet Chestnut coppice. It's not a pretty wood at all and has little feeling of natural beauty in comparison to the numerous unmanaged woods found locally. However I think it's important for us to try to protect those creatures and plants which rely on it and as an important part of the English landscape which has been lost in most places. Here that includes the Pearl-bordered Fritillary and Drab Looper moth. I believe that coppicing in this way has the additional benefit that young trees absorb more CO2 than old ones too.

A few photographs for you:

Recently coppiced section. Ugly but still an important part of the English countryside IMO.

Young Sweet Chestnut. Still not attractive but the ground flora is starting to develop. Dog's Mercury and Bluebells here.

Yellow Pimpernel, a plant that can be found in open or fairly shady woods.

Buff-tip moth larva eating Sweet Chestnut.

Alexander

[Matsukaze]

I'd guess that BC's reasoning behind wanting to restore the Sweet Chestnut coppice is that it is already there and could readily be reinstated, whereas replacing the Sweet Chestnut with other trees and shrubs for coppicing would take much longer and be more costly.

[NickB]

Good point - on the basis any coppice adds variety to the wood and that is what is needed - a constantly dynamic and changing set of environments provided by the different cycles of coppicing in different areas within the woodland mix....
N

[Tracy]

I thought it would be good to add a bit more information on the site that Billy has mentioned, as we happen to own part of the wood where the coppicing is taking place, and know the owners of the other parts of the wood as well.

First of all, I'd like to make it clear that BC are *not* trying to promote the restoration of sweet chestnut coppice. In our interaction with them we have found that their goal is to promote the creation of well-lit rides and glades, which result in increased ground flora and insect life. If it happens that it's sweet chestnut being cut to do this, that's just a coincidence.

Second, the woodland is not a "*former* Sweet Chestnut coppice with Oak standards", with "Some years of neglect". It was last cut in 1993, and as such is very much an actively worked coppice, with very little overstood sweet chestnut. Apart from the ride-widening (which BC supports) there are also areas being coppiced in the same way they have been for hundreds of years. The produce is being used for fencing, garden furniture, beanpoles, stakes and logs for heating as a renewable energy source.

Third, the coppice that is being cut now is being cut in small coupes of 0.5 to 2 acres at a time, rather than the tens of acres it used to be cut in. This is creating a patchwork effect, where there will always be areas of young coppice somewhere in the wood, along with the associated ground flora. This patchwork effect, we are told, will offer habitat to a wide range of species.

It's interesting that Billy mentions the RSPB killing off sweet chestnut, and NickB mentions the report "The ecological impact of sweet chestnut coppice silviculture on former ancient, broadleaved woodland". This is an excellent and interesting report - and is worth a read! It focusses on pure sweet chestnut silviculture, which this woodland is not. It just so happens that the author of this report has visited the wood where we, and Billy, own a few acres, and he was impressed with the diversity of flora in the woodland, and was pleased with the effect of the coppicing we'd carried out.

Billy said that "Sweet Chestnut has very large leaves which form an almost permanent leaf litter". In fact, the above report says on page 71: "The limited evidence does, however, suggest that chestnut litter is broken down at least as quickly as that of its native tree associates in Britain on similar sites, and that nutrient cycling, litter turnover rates and the soil fauna populations are not adversely affected."

It's also worth mentioning at this point that the wood is not pure sweet chestnut, but inlcudes a variety of species. In our coppicing so far we've been making sure to leave some native trees untouched, such as birch, oak, hornbeam, holly, hawthorn to name but a few. We've also been careful to preserve honeysuckle (for White Admirals) and leave standing dead wood where it is safe to do so. BC has been very helpful in advising and supporting us in this.

We have also enjoyed BC and Sussex Moth group Moth Surveys. We had one in July 2008, and another in July 2009. This year we had 105 species, many of them in an area we coppiced over the 2007/8 winter. It was also in this area that 11 of the rare Clay Fan-foot were found, compared to just 7 in 2008.
http://peplers.blogspot.com/2009/08/200 ... urvey.html

Now for some pictures. Billy posted some of an area just after coppicing and a few months later. I'd like to post some similar pictures from our own wood, just a few hundred metres away, but coppiced a year earlier.

April 2008:


ground flora in Aug 2008:




August 2009




And here's some of the widening of the footpath, which Billy neglected to mention or photograph. Within just a few months of completing the work, it was full of various butterflies that were not to be seen there a year earlier, and through the summer the ground flora has had a chance to grow to provide them with food. We'll be cutting the edges of this path again every few years to maintain it for wildlife.

January 2009:


May-Aug 2009:
butterflies and regrowth




I fully understand Billys concern for this woodland and his love for nature. I just wanted to be absolutely clear on a public forum that BC have not been working to destroy native trees, and their advice and work in this area of the country has had a fantastic and good impact of increased butterfly populations, habitats and enthusiastic people.

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks for this post, Tracy, which must have taken some time to put together.

Habitat management is an emotive subject and I, for one, appreciate hearing a more-balanced perspective of what is actually happening at this particular location.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Neil Hulme]

Hi Tracy,
A thoroughly excellent and well-informed posting. For 'professional' reasons I have considered it inadvisable to get involved in the technical aspects of this thread. However, I'm sure you will continue to see your woods 'come alive'.
Neil

[Dave McCormick]

I have thought before that cutting away trees was kind of bad for moths mostly that many use various trees as a foodplant and getting rid of that may be bad and its in the winter when the cats hibernate because the trees they feed on have no leaves and its too cold for them and how can they survive with no tree to feed on?. But as Tracy mentioned the 105 moth species, it seems they still survive and it would be good to know how they continue to do this and other insects do to, stop me beoing so ignorant on the subject.

Also I have often wondered how it works. We are trying to protect our woodlands and ancient woodlands, but yet we are cutting away trees and making openings like this, hardly seems like we are protecting it by cutting parts of it down. I don know that without the copiscing the forest can't regrow, well I guess I don't know enough.

Also I have often wondered the enviromental impact on cutting away trees as they give oxygen and less trees can give less oxygen, which can be bad, but what I found out recently is that younger trees can give of more oxygen than older ones, so I guess thats ok.

Tracy mentioned leaving trees that fell if its safe to leave them, and talking to local forestry commission people where I live whoch has a mix of broadleaved woodland and pine forests, I have seen the benifits of leaving the trees to rot. It not only provides habit for bugs like beetles and grubs, but other insects too and fungi can grow. I have noticed an increase in fungi in areas where trees have been aloowed to lay and rot, which helps them break down and provide untrients for the forest and help it grow.

[Tracy]

Thanks all for your continued input. It is a difficult topic, and I have found that there are as many opinions with the technicalities as there are foresters and conservationists. One thing they do agree on is that creating clearings and having a range of tree ages is good for the woodland life. No sun in the wood, no flowers and plants for the insects. A range of tree ages allows birds to find appropriate nesting too. Old ones with dead limbs are good for bats, and woodpeckers, trees that are 4 - 8 year olds are good for nightingales, everyone likes something different!

The RSPB book called 'Managing woodland for birds' is a very good guide if you do want to do extra reading, Dave.
I believe that it is Oliver Rackham that says in his book that woods should have 20% light, and that there are no such thing as wildwoods. They have always been worked to some degree. A very good book, I recommend it!
I can also refer you to this site:
http://coppice.co.uk/ which has a section on biodiversity in coppice woodland.

We were told by BC that you can tell the health of your wood if you have butterflies in it, and we are enjoying seeing butterflies in ours.

There is the wider social and environmental link with local timber too. I won't get into that here as it is not the forum for it - but having local, sustainable, durable timber (like chestnut) might help save some rainforest somewhere!

Dave, you are right, there are a lot of things hibernating in the winter months. We are trying very hard to coppice as early as we can, not when it is freezing cold, but in my experience, when I have disturbed a moth or something, it simply flew off to another area. As I mentioned before we are cutting small areas, lots more trees, leaf mould etc for them all around. When we first cut, it does look kind of bare and like we have done a bad thing, but a year later when it is teeming with excited life,local regenerating trees, we know it was a good thing Others here are likely to know a lot more than me about hibernating moths.

We are learning as we go and as we all know there is too much to learn. The more I find out the more I realise I don't know!

[NickB]

....Also I have often wondered how it works. We are trying to protect our woodlands and ancient woodlands, but yet we are cutting away trees and making openings like this, hardly seems like we are protecting it by cutting parts of it down......

Dave - Most "ancient" woodlands, such as those mentioned in the Doomsday book and still woodland today, have very few "ancient" trees in them. The fact that they are ancient woodlands means that they have been exploited in a sustainable way for the last 1000 years or so. Many have few trees older than 150 years because they continue to be cropped or they ceased to be managed a relatively short time ago.
I do think we need to look at the long-term needs of a working and sustainable woodland rather than make quick and emotional judgements about particular areas being cut down or coppiced.
Of course, sensitivity to the particular habitats that do exist needs to be exercised before any plans are made. That is why it is so important that organisations like BC and the Wildlife Trusts and other local groups continue to offer advice and support as well as research and education to landowners and the public.
And why, I guess Dave, people like you and I, and those on UKB, care so much too...