My headline is a scathing quote from the late, great, Prof Oliver Rackham (1986).
I'm very pleased to read these remarks in the latest RSPB mag, "Nature's Home" :
"Is tree planting the answer ?
The right trees in the right places
Picking the wrong trees may mean that they will struggle to thrive or provide ecosystem benefits.
New trees need to be native species matched to the local soil type and biodiversity profile, and planted for the right reasons -
without damaging other valuable habitats, such as meadowland.
Protecting surviving woodland
Protecting existing native woodlands and expanding them is both biodiversity and tacking climate change.
Allowing existing woodland to expand naturally as trees set their own seeds ensures a diverse habitat
that benefits a wide variety of species.
It also creates a scrubby, intermediate phase that provides a home for birds such as the willow tit.
New trees
But planting trees also has its place.
Trees chosen by experts to allow us to control the mix of species and give the maximum boost to local wildlife.
It also allows woodlands to be established faster and with a greater degree of control.
But the need for large numbers of saplings can create pressures to import young trees
and these can bring in disease, such as ash dieback.
Never on deep peat
Trees should never, ever be planted on deep peat.
There is increasingly compelling scientific evidence that restoration of deep peat habitats is the best way of
securing carbon stores and sequestering more carbon in the long term."
I'll finish with another Rackham quote : "the most effective conservation measure is three strands of barbed wire"
(to keep out destructive mammals such as deer, sheep and swine).
Anyone disagree / like to comment ?
I'm very pleased to read these remarks in the latest RSPB mag, "Nature's Home" :
"Is tree planting the answer ?
The right trees in the right places
Picking the wrong trees may mean that they will struggle to thrive or provide ecosystem benefits.
New trees need to be native species matched to the local soil type and biodiversity profile, and planted for the right reasons -
without damaging other valuable habitats, such as meadowland.
Protecting surviving woodland
Protecting existing native woodlands and expanding them is both biodiversity and tacking climate change.
Allowing existing woodland to expand naturally as trees set their own seeds ensures a diverse habitat
that benefits a wide variety of species.
It also creates a scrubby, intermediate phase that provides a home for birds such as the willow tit.
New trees
But planting trees also has its place.
Trees chosen by experts to allow us to control the mix of species and give the maximum boost to local wildlife.
It also allows woodlands to be established faster and with a greater degree of control.
But the need for large numbers of saplings can create pressures to import young trees
and these can bring in disease, such as ash dieback.
Never on deep peat
Trees should never, ever be planted on deep peat.
There is increasingly compelling scientific evidence that restoration of deep peat habitats is the best way of
securing carbon stores and sequestering more carbon in the long term."
I'll finish with another Rackham quote : "the most effective conservation measure is three strands of barbed wire"
(to keep out destructive mammals such as deer, sheep and swine).
Anyone disagree / like to comment ?