New research defines the challenge of woodland restoration
The challenge of creating new woodland in the UK is daunting, but new research from The University of Manchester concludes that policymakers should “prioritise woodland creation protocols aimed at nature recovery and tailored to the context of restoration rather than simply based on opportunistic land acquisition.”
In an article published by Policy@Manchester, Dr Matthew Dennis highlights that native broadleaf woodland in the UK stands at 14.5% land-cover compared to 40% for Europe as a whole. He adds: “Government targets aim to reach 17% by 2030 – a huge increase on the ground in a short space of time.”
Dr Dennis explains that current debates in landscape ecology centre on whether large areas of intact habitat are needed for effective nature conservation or whether smaller more numerous patches can achieve the same levels of protection.
He writes: “Historically, protected habitat design has called for a bigger, better, more joined-up approach, underpinned by ideas from island biogeography, landscape ecology and government white papers. However, recent evidence within conservation biology research has split scientists between those calling for the prioritisation of fewer larger patches and those who argue that fragmentation (smaller more numerous patches) promotes greater species richness.”
According to Dr Dennis, a Senior Lecturer in Geographical Information Science, the adoption of either of these perspectives could limit the options available to planners and landscape managers seeking to restore nature through woodland creation. He continues: “Therefore, knowledge of whether large, connected patches of woodland or a more fragmented pattern delivers greater chances of nature recovery is key to the effective assigning of resources.”
The academic reveals that research carried out through the University of Manchester CASTOR project shows that the ability of woodland to support biodiversity is shaped by the intensity of the surrounding land-use.
“Specifically, we looked at woodland mammals as this group is particularly sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation,” he writes. “When we looked at these species, we found that in areas of the Northern Forest landscape that are dominated by grassland, or whenever cover by urban or arable land-use was low, the bigger, better, more-joined up approach did not perform as well as expected.”
Dr Dennis continues: “Another key finding of our study was the strongly homogenising effect of arable land-use. We found that, as cover by arable land-use increased, overall land-cover diversity reduced, along with mammalian species richness.”
He asserts that these findings can be directly integrated into planning policy, with particular relevance for large-scale landscape restoration. “Within such contexts, a range of woodland creation options should be employed and opportunistic acquisition of land for reforestation should not be the only consideration in restoration schemes,” he writes.
“Instead, restoration should be led by the landscape context. For example, in grassland landscapes, opportunistic planting of new woodland may be appropriate and woodland increase of any size and shape ought to be encouraged. In more hostile contexts, such as where urbanisation is high, resources should be directed at large and well-connected woodland patches, otherwise nature recovery efforts may be wasted.”
‘Rooting for effective reforestation: landscape context and woodland cover’ by Dr Matthew Dennis is available to read on the Policy@Manchester website.
