Woodland Survey Handbook: Collecting Data for Conservation in British Woodland 1784271845, 9781784271848

Citation preview

Woodland Survey Handbook

Woodland Survey Handbook Collecting Data for Conservation in British Woodland K.J. Kirby Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3RB, UK

J.E. Hall Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness IV3 8NW, UK

Pelagic Publishing | www.pelagicpublishing.com

Published by Pelagic Publishing www.pelagicpublishing.com PO Box 874, Exeter, EX3 9BR, UK www.pelagicpublishing.com Woodland Survey Handbook ISBN 978-1-78427-184-8 Paperback ISBN 978-1-78427-185-5 ePub ISBN 978-1-78427-186-2 PDF © Keith Kirby and Jeanette Hall 2019 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted. All rights reserved. Apart from short excerpts for use in research or for reviews, no part of this document may be printed or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, now known or hereafter invented or otherwise without prior permission from the publisher. A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Cover photographs: Top: Keepscombe Wood, near Looe in Cornwall (Adam Burton Photography, www.adamburtonphotography.com) Lower left to right: Recently-cut coppice, Roudsea Wood, Cumbria (Keith Kirby); Data logging in the field (Ben Ditchburn, Forestry Commission); and Recording vegetation quadrats, Wytham Woods (Keith Kirby)

Contents Acknowledgements viii Preface ix 1

Introduction 1

2

Background to nature conservation surveys

2

2.1 Introduction

2

2.2  Why do we need nature conservation surveys?

3

2.3  Curating your data

5

2.4  Standardisation, survey accuracy and the value of ‘unplanned surveys’

5

Landscape-scale assessment: putting sites into their wider context

8

3.1  The overall woodland resource 3.1.1  Past woodland cover

8 9

3

4

3.2  Woods in their spatial and temporal contexts

10

3.3  Landscape character assessments

11

3.4  Other historical accounts and papers

12

3.5  Conservation designations, agri-environment schemes and surveys

13

3.6  Ancient woodland inventories

13

3.7  Species distributions

13

3.8  Pressures and threats

14

3.9  Collation and analysis of landscape-level surveys

16

Site assessment surveys

18

4.1 Introduction

18

4.2  Why focus on recording vascular plant species and structure?

19

4.3  Accessing past surveys

20

vi  |  Woodland Survey Handbook 5

6

7

A basic walkabout survey

21

5.1  Things to consider before you start

21

5.2  Outputs of a walkabout survey

21

5.3  Planning and mapping a route 5.3.1  Precision on the map and in the field

22 27

5.4  Recording plants on walkabouts 5.4.1  Recording species abundance 5.4.2  Sources of variation in the species recorded 5.4.3  Interpreting the species list

28 28 30 31

5.5  Describing woodland structure

33

5.6  Subsidiary habitats within woodland

40

5.7  Surrounding land

44

5.8  Vegetation maps from walkabout surveys

44

5.9 Management

45

5.10  Initial write-up

50

Going beyond the walkabout: more detailed surveys

53

6.1  Quadrat recording in woodland for flora/vegetation 6.1.1  Size of quadrat 6.1.2  Quadrat distribution

53 55 56

6.2  Woodland classification 6.2.1  Classification systems for British woods 6.2.2  The National Vegetation Classification 6.2.3  Other woodland classifications and their interrelationships

57 58 59 61

6.3  Recording woodland structure

62

6.4  Dead-wood surveys

65

6.5  Veteran tree and parkland surveys

69

6.6  Grazing and browsing

70

6.7  Woodland archaeology and soil surface features

70

6.8 Soils

74

6.9  Biomass and energy flows

76

Surveys for species groups other than vascular plants

77

7.1 Mammals

77

7.2  Woodland birds

79

7.3  Reptiles and amphibians

81

Contents  | vii

8

9

7.4 Bryophytes

82

7.5 Lichens

83

7.6 Invertebrates

84

7.7 Fungi

90

Long-term surveillance to detect change

91

8.1 Introduction

91

8.2  Landscape-scale change

92

8.3  Condition monitoring on designated sites

93

8.4  Use of permanent plots and transects to assess change in woodland stand structure and composition 8.4.1  Semi-permanent plots 8.4.2  Other types of permanent/semi-permanent record 8.4.3  Making ‘permanent plot studies’ permanent in practice

95 96 96 96

Conclusion

98

Appendix 1: Example of a completed walkabout record card

99

Appendix 2: Stand Group key

103

Appendix 3: National Vegetation Classification: English key

104

Appendix 4: Annex I: Woodland types recognised in the UK

113

References

114

Index

135

Acknowledgements The original handbook was produced by the Nature Conservancy Council and we are grateful to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for permission to draw on that volume. The Department of Plant Sciences in Oxford provided the congenial space to carry out the work. Various individuals commented on and contributed to different sections of this revision, including Phil Baarda, Marc Bruard, Ben Ditchburn, Elsa Field, Rob Fuller, Phil Grice, Jeanette Hall, David Heaver, John Henson-Webb, Mark Lawrence, Simon Leather, Dani Linton, Iain MacGowan, Tony Mitchell-Jones, Emily Warner and Ray Woods. Our thanks to them and apologies for any errors, misinterpretations and wild speculations that have been inadvertently added to their comments. The photographs, unless otherwise stated, are by Keith Kirby, but we acknowledge the following contributions to figures and images: The map from Charles Elton’s diaries (Box 2.1) is reproduced courtesy of the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. The following are produced with permission from the Forestry Commission: Figure 3.1, based on data from the National Forest Inventory (© Crown copyright); Figure 3.2, based on the 1947 census of woodland and trees, now held in the National Archives; images of data logging in the field (Box 5.5); Table 6.5, redrawn from Bulletin 124 (Pyatt et al. 2001). Google Earth images provide the backdrops for Figures 3.3b and 5.1. Figure 3.5 is based on data collected for the Atlas of the Flora of Britain and Ireland (© BSBI) reproduced by permission from the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland. Natural Resources Wales produced the network maps used in Figure 3.6. Figure 5.3a is reproduced, courtesy of JNCC, from Warren and Fuller (1993). The Wytham canopy photograph in Figure 6.8a was provided by Professor Yadvinder Malhi, University of Oxford. Support for the data collection underlying Figure 6.8b is acknowledged from the Metrology for Earth Observation and Climate project (MetEOC-2), grant number ENV55 within the European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP). The EMRP is jointly funded by the EMRP participating countries within EURAMET and the European Union; NPL; the NERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO) and UCL. Figure 7.1 was provided by Danielle Linton. Figure 7.2 was provided by Professor Robert Fuller (BTO). The image in Box 7.2d is reproduced with permission from the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.

Preface During the 1980s, much conservation effort was put into woodland surveys (Appendix 1) and this experience was brought together by the Nature Conservancy Council in ‘A woodland survey handbook’ (Kirby 1988). The emphasis was on botanical field surveys because these were the main method used to describe and evaluate sites as potential Sites of Special Scientific Interest or as Wildlife Trust reserves. The Handbook became part of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s suite of publications, as the conservation institutions devolved and merged. The survey landscape has also changed. Much survey work is done by consultancies rather than directly by the government agencies. Citizen-science projects are increasingly being used to collect data. Remote sensing has come of age and replaced field walking (and fieldwork generally). The internet has made it possible to access data easily across a range of sources, which can then be collated using Geographic Information Systems in ways that were barely conceivable 30 years ago. Computers no longer fill whole rooms but sit on everyone’s desk and in their cars. Mobile phone apps are taking the place of bulky field identification guides; direct recording to data-loggers in the field is replacing clipboard and paper. Nonetheless, we think that there is still a place for a rewritten version of the survey handbook, incorporating insights on woodland that have accumulated since the 1988 original. The work has benefited from inputs from current conservation agency staff and a range of others who scrutinised different sections, but the responsibility for any errors that slipped through in the final editing lies firmly with me. Keith Kirby Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford

CHAPTER 1

Introduction This is a rewriting of ‘A woodland survey handbook’, produced in 1988 by the Nature Conservancy Council (subsequently adopted by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee), which was itself based on ideas in Peterken (1981). In this revision, we describe survey techniques that may be useful in putting the wood into its wider landscape context, and ways of collecting information for assessing the conservation importance of a woodland and for seeing how the wildlife interest may be changing in response to different pressures and opportunities. In Britain, nature conservation interests in woods may cover everything from the soil, to forest structure, to the patterning of woods in the landscape. There is no single technique that is right for all circumstances: what works for a citizen-science project intended to develop public awareness of woodland conservation would not necessarily be appropriate for a survey collecting information for a planning inquiry. We have concentrated on those areas which seem most popular and relevant, judging from the frequency with which the outputs are used or come up in queries. The book covers the following topics: •

Background to nature conservation surveys.

•

Landscape-scale woodland assessments: putting a wood into its wider context.

•

Field assessments based on a walk around a wood.

•

More detailed surveys of interest features and species groups.

•

Long-term surveillance and monitoring.

We have not said much about methods of analysing results or writing reports. These should be considered at the start of survey where it is intended that comparisons will be drawn between sites, or within a site over time, but there is advice available elsewhere, for example the guidance for ecological report writing produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (https://www.cieem.net/ guidelines-for-ecological-report-writing). We hope that this revision will be of use to members of the conservation agencies, wildlife trusts and other conservation bodies, foresters and individuals interested in woodland management for wildlife. We did not intend the 1988 account to stand as the ‘last word’ on woodland surveys and nor will this volume: methods are likely to move on very rapidly in the next few years. At the least, this volume may then provide a milestone against which further progress can be judged.

CHAPTER 2

Background to nature conservation surveys Questions to be addressed: •

Why do we need nature conservation surveys?

•

What should be done with the results?

•

Planned versus unplanned surveys.

2.1  Introduction The Convention on Biological Diversity defines biodiversity as the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. Many prefer a shortened summary: ‘the variety of life’. The Convention does not specify that only natural patterns of diversity should be considered, and there is increasing evidence that much of the diversity we view today is the product of interactions between human and natural processes. This is very obviously the case for woodland in western Europe and particularly in Britain (Rackham 2003; Kirby and Watkins 2015). There is debate as to how extensive the ‘natural woodland’ cover in the pre-Neolithic period was and about its structure and composition (Peterken 1996; Vera 2000). However, all woods in Britain have been affected by human activities to a greater or lesser extent, in many cases for 1,000  years or more. A separate issue is how much we should seek to maintain these cultural landscapes, with their associated species, features and assemblages, through continued intervention and woodland management. Alternatively, should we, in some places, develop novel and more natural wooded landscapes through rewilding (Lorimer et al. 2015)? Surveys, such as described here, do not resolve these debates but they may help to clarify what stands to be lost or gained from taking one path or another.

Background to nature conservation surveys  | 3

2.2  Why do we need nature conservation surveys? We need to understand the current interest of an area to help answer practical nature conservation questions. •

What is the overall woodland resource in a county, region or country; what are its characteristics (origin, structure, composition, patterns); which woods are most likely to be of high/low nature conservation value; and which may be more or less resilient in the face of ongoing environmental change?

•

What information can we collect to help decide whether one site is of more value than another, and hence, should receive a greater level of protection, through formal designation, general policy presumption or changes to planning rules?

•

What aspects of the site do we need to give special attention to when making decisions and recommendations about site management (including any decision not to intervene)?

•

What can we say about features and species groups, other than the obvious vascular plants in a wood?

•

What evidence is there on recent past or likely future changes in woodland patterns in the landscape, the condition and dynamics of a wood or stand and its vulnerability to different pressures or threats?

Different types of information and different levels of detail are useful in answering each of the above questions. In the 1980s, this led to surveys being broken down into three phases or levels. Phase/Level 1 surveys covered broad-scale habitat mapping; Phase/

Figure 2.1  Relationships between the levels of a survey.

4  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Level  2 more detailed individual site surveys; and Phase/Level 3 detailed recording of non-plant species groups, long-term surveillance of plots, and so on. This terminology is not now commonly used but is reflected in the breakdown of survey projects into landscape-scale surveys, site surveys and within-site work used in this account (Figure 2.1). In landscape-scale surveys less than an hour might be expended on considering each site; site surveys tend to be of the order of one to two days per 30–50 ha; and within-site studies may involve weeks, months or years of work, leading to books and dedicated symposium proceedings (Table 2.1). Table 2.1  Examples of accounts of individual woods and woodland types.

Site

Reference

The Blean (Kent)

Holmes and Wheaten (2002)

The New Forest (Hampshire)

Tubbs (1986); Newton (2010)

Hatfield Forest (Essex)

Rackham (1989)

Monks Wood (Cambridgeshire)

Steele and Welch (1973)

Hayley Wood (Cambridgeshire)

Rackham (1975)

Brampton Wood (Cambridgeshire)

Collins et al. (2005)

Bedford Purlieus (Cambridgeshire)

Peterken and Welch (1975)

Northaw Great Wood (Hertfordshire)

Sage (1966)

Lambridge Wood (Oxfordshire)

Fortey (2016)

Wytham Woods (Oxfordshire)

Savill et al. (2010)

Lady Park Wood (Gloucestershire/Gwent)

Peterken and Mountford (2017)

Wyre Forest (Worcestershire/Shropshire)

Westwood et al. (2015)

Kielder Forest (Northumberland)

Petty et al. (1995)

Black Mount pinewoods (Argyll)

Wormell and Wormell (2003)

Rothiemurchus Forest (Highland)

Smout and Lambert (1999)

Native pinewoods

Steven and Carlisle (1959); Bunce and Jeffers (1977); Forestry 79(3) special issue (Humphrey 2006)

Atlantic hazelwoods

Coppins and Coppins (2012)

Atlantic oakwoods

Botanical Journal of Scotland 57 special issue (Malcolm et al. 2005)

Oak

Morris and Perring (1974)

Birch

Henderson and Mann (1984)

Ash

Mitchell (2014a; 2014b)

Plantations

Ford et al. (1979); Humphrey et al. (2003); Quine (2015)

Mixed tree species stands

Cannell et al. (1992)

Coppicewoods

Buckley (1992)

Background to nature conservation surveys  | 5

2.3  Curating your data The long-term nature of woodland processes means that they often stretch beyond the interest, careers and lifetimes of individual researchers. Data that may be irrelevant or uninformative at one time may become a valuable baseline for someone looking at changes 20, 50 or 100 years down the line (Lindenmayer et al. 2012; Peterken and Mountford 2017). Whatever type of survey is carried out, the results should be recorded and deposited somewhere accessible to future researchers, not left as uncurated piles of paper or computer files. (We admit to having such material, but the heaps are gradually getting smaller – honest!) As important as the data themselves are the metadata – the details of how the data were collected and any limitations on their interpretation. Increasingly, journals expect the data on which papers are based to be made available to other researchers; there are local and national record centres; and various forms of institutional data archives. Species data should be linked to local record centres and the National Biodiversity Network (https:// nbn.org.uk/); for more general considerations see Chapman (2005).

2.4  Standardisation, survey accuracy and the value of ‘unplanned surveys’ Some things need to be standardised: species names, for example, should be based on a recognised text. Particular sizes of quadrat may be more useful than others for recording different vegetation types. If you want to make comparisons with another survey (in time or space), replicating their methods as closely as possible is generally desirable. Any particular survey, however, needs to meet the objectives set for it, within the constraints of the resources available. What is needed, or possible, in one region for one purpose may not be the most appropriate for another reason and another set of concerns. Therefore, this book illustrates different approaches, rather than recommending a single way of doing things. The limits to the accuracy and precision of any survey method should be appreciated; that is, do they give ‘valid’ and ‘reliable’ (or repeatable) results? •

Validity refers to whether there is a real relationship between what you are measuring and what you really want to know; for example, does the number of vascular plant species seen on a walk or recorded in a series of quadrats have a consistent relationship to the actual number present in different woods?

•

Reliability refers to whether in any one site you obtain the same result from repeated application of the same survey method; for example, if you walk round the wood on different occasions, do you see a similar number of species each time? How is this affected if the survey is conducted by different observers?

Methods can be reliable but have low validity; for example, if you take ten quadrats in a wood you may always count a similar number of plant species, but that number may be 10% of the total in a large, highly variable wood, and 80% in a small, uniform wood. Results can also be valid but with a low reliability, such as when there is a highly significant relationship between two variables but also a large scatter of points about the line; for example, there is a log-linear relationship between the number of plant species

6  |  Woodland Survey Handbook found in a wood and its extent, but there are plenty of examples of small woods having more species than much larger ones (e.g. Figure 6.3). Where formal sampling is carried out, statistical power tests can indicate the likelihood of being able to detect various levels of difference between surveys. Both technical and human sources of variation should be considered when making decisions about survey methods and the results obtained. For example, in field survey programmes you might consider the competence of the surveyors, any variations between surveyors, inconsistencies in the interpretation of survey instructions and field survey conditions (weather, season of year, nature of terrain, etc.).

Box 2.1  Extract from Charles Elton’s diaries for 25 February 1949 (italic) in comparison to the same area of Wytham Woods, Oxfordshire, walked in February 2014 (normal text) Walked in the North-west quadrant of the North Hill (see map). Saw four hornless smallish (fallow) deer, dark russet, with white rumps, moving in mixed deciduous wood. Also tracks near here. Mick Southern says the maximum number known at present is in 11: a party of 50 people failed to drive them to be shot last week. After nearly a decade of deer management there are probably still nearly twice as many fallow as in 1949. None were seen on this visit, but a pair of fine roe crossed the path ahead of me. The nibbled shoots of bramble also indicate that deer are still a significant factor in the Woods.

Background to nature conservation surveys  | 7

Stream 35 is the one that has been there most years, – a spring coming out where a tree has blown over. It has brooklime, and today I found some Chara (stinking of fish) rather algal covered. Almost hopeless to name: not kept. The marshy area is still there with a little surface water, although the stream leading off it seemed dry. Difficult to believe that it would contain brooklime or Chara. Spring 30 was very meagre and muddy, and its source trickle a few yards above – a tiny seepage stream with mud banks. Spring 30 is now just a small hollow with occasional Carex pendula and Deschampsia cespitosa.

Ideally, we would not need to make decisions about a wood until we had carried out the relevant, properly designed survey at the right time of year. In practice, however, questions about a site inevitably arise and have to be answered in the winter before it is due to be surveyed. So, we regularly use information from ad hoc woodland visits that may have been made for totally different reasons. Such material must be treated with care, but useful comparisons can be made based on old photographs, diary entries or casual descriptions of sites. Proctor et al. (1980) used old images of Wistman’s Wood on Dartmoor to show that the wood had expanded over the past 100 years, not declined as many had thought; and Charles Elton’s diary entries (Box 2.1) have been used to follow changes in the management of Wytham Woods in the decades since World War II (Kirby 2016a; 2016b).

CHAPTER 3

Landscape-scale assessment: putting sites into their wider context Questions to be addressed: •

What is the overall woodland resource?

•

What are its characteristics (origin, structure, composition, patterns, potential threats)?

•

Which are the ones most likely to be of higher/lower nature conservation value?

3.1  The overall woodland resource Ordnance Survey maps (https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk) show boundaries, relationships with surroundings and sometimes a breakdown of the woodland into broadleaved, coniferous and mixed (Harley 1975). There are about 3.05 million hectares of woodland in Britain, all of which contain some wildlife, and hence potentially contribute to meeting nature conservation objectives (Forestry Commission 2012; updated to 3.17 million hectares at the beginning of 2018: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7aqdgc). This ranges from large coniferous plantations extending over thousands of hectares to small groups of trees in field corners. There is a further resource of ‘non-woodland’ trees that are important for some groups of species and interests. Various forms of forest map are available from the Forestry Commission (e.g. Figure 3.1) at https://www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory. The National Forest Inventory also involves a stratified sample of one-hectare squares of woodland in which a wide range of structural and compositional data is collected. More detail is available for native woods in Scotland (Nelson 2010; Robertson and Grieve 2010; Grieve and Nanager 2011) at http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/ strategy-policy-guidance/native-woodland-survey-of-scotland-nwss. Data can be viewed at http://maps.forestry.gov.uk/imf/imf.jsp?site=fcscotland_ext& or downloaded at https://www.forestry.gov.uk/datadownload.

Landscape-scale assessment: putting sites into their wider context  | 9

Figure 3.1  Example of local woodland distribution patterns on the Northamptonshire/Cambridgeshire border. (Based on data from the National Forest Inventory, © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Forestry Commission 2018.)

3.1.1  Past woodland cover Information on past woodland cover in aggregated form is given in the reports for various forest and woodland inventories carried out since World War II (HMSO 1952; Locke 1970; 1987; Forestry Commission 2003; 2012). The field sheets for the 1947 census (Figure 3.2) are held in the National Archives at Kew and give a general description of the composition of

Figure 3.2  Extract from the 1947 Forestry Census field records. (© Crown copyright, reproduced by permission of the Forestry Commission)

10  |  Woodland Survey Handbook the woods (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/record?catid=5882&catln=3). Watkins (1984) illustrates their use and Peterken and Allison (1989) provide a useful summary of other changes to tree and woodland cover in the post-war period of farming and forestry intensification.

3.2  Woods in their spatial and temporal contexts Standard digital backdrops for terrain, soils, and so on, are available from a variety of sources, such as https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/ os-terrain-5.html and http://www.ukso.org/maps.html. The Environment Agency is producing a new lidar map of England (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ environment-agency-uncovers-landscape-with-laser-mapping). Satellite and aerial photographic images of woodland and its surroundings are available from sources such as Google Earth (https://www.google.com/earth/). Historic aerial photographs can be found at Britain from Above (https://britainfromabove.org.uk/) and the National Collection of Aerial Photography (http://ncap.org.uk/). Historic maps show how the extent and surroundings of woods have changed, or not (Figure 3.3); many of these are available online (e.g. https://www.old-maps.co.uk; http:// www.oldmapsonline.org; http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/index.jsp). The midnineteenth century six inches to the mile series are particularly accurate. The original surveyors’ drawings for the first edition of the Ordnance Survey (early nineteenth century) are held by the British Museum and available at http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/ordsurvdraw/. A variety of other maps are available from the National Library of Scotland, many of which are georeferenced, at http://maps.nls.uk/. These maps include General Roy’s map of Scotland in the eighteenth century, which preceded the establishment of the Ordnance Survey (Hewitt 2011). The Countryside Survey provides another measure of woodland and its composition, based on analysis of the vegetation in sample kilometre squares (Wood et al. 2017). Within each square, data on vegetation structure and composition are collected from different habitats using quadrats. The first survey was carried out in 1978, the most recent in 2007. Changes in woodland and other habitats can be compared across the surveys (http://www. countrysidesurvey.org.uk/) and using the accompanying Land Cover Map (https://www. ceh.ac.uk/services/land-cover-map-2015; Morton et al. 2011). For Scotland, the National Countryside Monitoring System reports on comparisons of aerial photographs from the 1940s, 1970s and 1980s (http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/corporate/the%20 national%20countryside%20monitoring%20scheme%20technical%20report.pdf). Past land-use information can be seen for the 1930s from the Land Utilisation Surveys (http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/)(Stamp1948;ColemanandShaw1980;Balchin 1984). Early nineteenth-century land use may be covered by tithe maps for England and Wales (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/tithes/)andthe Statistical Accounts for Scotland (http://stataccscot.edina.ac.uk/static/statacc/dist/home). Maps of semi-natural habitats generally were produced during the 1970s and 1980s e.g. Phase 1 Habitat Classification Maps (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4258) by a combination of aerial photographic interpretation and field walking. These were usually only available in paper format, but some have been digitised subsequently. Coverage is most complete for Wales (Blackstock et al. 2010).

Landscape-scale assessment: putting sites into their wider context  | 11

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.3  (a) Andre and Chapman’s map of woodland around Navestock Old Park in Essex, ­published in 1777 and (b) an image showing a similar woodland pattern today: © Google Earth.

The development of a Habitat Map of Scotland (HabMoS) is described at https:// gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural-spaces/dataset.jsp?dsid=HABMOS.

3.3  Landscape character assessments Landscape character assessments seek to identify and describe variations in the landscape, the features that make an area distinctive, how it has evolved and how it is perceived by different groups of people, taking account of natural, physical, cultural and historical

12  |  Woodland Survey Handbook elements. Woodland cover forms part of, and can be seen in the context of, such assessments. Examples can be found at the following websites: •

Scotland – https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/landscape-change/ landscape-character-assessment

•

Wales – http://www.naturalresources.wales/landscape?lang=en

•

England – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ landscape-character-assessments-identify-and-describe-landscape-types.

Parts of the countries have also been covered by historic landscape characterisation reports (http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/HLC/). For examples, see: •

Oxfordshire – https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/ oxfordshire-historic-landscape-characterisation-project

•

Glamorgans-Gwent – http://www.ggat.org.uk/cadw/historic_landscape/main/ english/historical.htm

•

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs – https://gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural-spaces/ dataset.jsp?dsid=LCALLTNPA.

3.4  Other historical accounts and papers Past descriptions in general accounts of the countryside, and more detailed estate records and studies of specific woods, can be used to supplement map-based information (Peterken 1979; Rackham 2003; Smout et al. 2005). These records may include maps, accounts for wood sales or payments for work done; nineteenth-century trade papers may contain adverts for timber available or wanted. Enclosure maps from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries tend not to show any detail about woodland, but may provide evidence for its presence at the time (Watkins 1990). Other general sources include the Statistical Accounts of Scotland (http://stataccscot. edina.ac.uk/static/statacc/dist/home), the Victoria County History series (https://www. victoriacountyhistory.ac.uk/) and accounts of local naturalists’ and local historical societies. The early volumes of the Journal of Ecology often contain papers that describe important woodland areas in some detail; for example, descriptions of Gamlingay Wood in Cambridgeshire (Adamson 1912) were subsequently followed up by Rackham (2003). There is increasing awareness of the insights that palaeoecological studies can bring to modern conservation. These often challenge some of our assumptions about the relative stability and continuity of woodland patterns and composition (e.g. Birks 1982; 1996; Day 1993; Shaw and Tipping 2006; Davies 2011). Subfossil snail and invertebrate remains can provide information on the composition and structure of the landscape (e.g. Whitehouse and Smith 2010; Allen 2017). Many large archaeological projects now include local environmental reconstructions (e.g. Miles et al. 2007).

Landscape-scale assessment: putting sites into their wider context  | 13

3.5  Conservation designations, agri-environment schemes and surveys Details of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, National Nature Reserves and various other conservation designations are available online: •

Scotland – http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp

•

Wales – http://lle.gov.wales/Catalogue/Item/ProtectedSitesSitesOfSpecialScientific​ Interest/?lang=en

•

England – http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/MagicMap.aspx.

The distribution (by 10  km2) of habitats listed under the European Union’s (EU’s) Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) is available at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/Publications/JNCC312/ UK_habitat_list.asp.

3.6  Ancient woodland inventories During the 1970s, Rackham (1990, originally published in 1976) and Peterken (1977) developed the idea of ancient woodland as a conservation priority. The Nature Conservancy Council brought together much of what was then easily available on woodland history and cover to produce maps of ancient woodland (Roberts et al. 1992; Spencer and Kirby 1992; Goldberg et al. 2007) (Figure 3.4). These have been amended to varying degrees since and are available via the following: •

England – http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/MagicMap.aspx

•

Wales – https://naturalresources.wales/guidance-and-advice/environmentaltopics/woodland-management/woodlands-and-the-environment/ ancient-woodland-inventory/?lang=en

•

Scotland – http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural-spaces/index.jsp.

3.7  Species distributions Species distributions, usually freely available at 10  km2 resolution (Figure 3.5), can be accessed through various atlases, for example the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al. 2002), local record centres (http://www.alerc.org.uk/) and the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) (https://nbn.org.uk/), which is a partnership of over 180 organisations with more than 215 million wildlife records available through the NBN Atlas. Museum and herbarium specimens may have information attached to them that will illuminate past distributions, abundance and phenology (e.g. Robbirt et al. 2011). See also Chapter 7.

14  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.4  Distribution of ancient woodland cover on a 10 km2 basis for England and Wales (from Spencer and Kirby 1992); (b) ancient woodland distribution at a county scale (Buckinghamshire).

The Ancient Tree Hunt is a living database of ancient or veteran trees, with over 100,000 trees recorded across the UK through a citizen-science type process (http://www. ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/). Other tree maps are being built up, for example the National Tree Map (https://www.blueskymapshop.com/products/national-tree-map).

3.8  Pressures and threats The Air Pollution Information System provides a searchable database and information on pollutants and their impacts on habitats and species (http://www.apis.ac.uk/). Forest condition monitoring, related to pollution, has been organised at the EU level (Moffat et al. 2008). In Britain, most of the plots that were contributed to this network were located in plantations (Pitman et al. 2010). The distributions of various pests and diseases are recorded through the Forestry Commission’s web pages (https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pestsanddiseases). The public has been encouraged to become involved by reporting such threats, as well as trees that appear to be relatively tolerant, for example through the Living Ash project survey (now closed; https://livingashproject.org.uk/survey) and ObservaTree (https://www.observatree.org. uk/). Deer distributions are summarised at http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/about_ wild_deer/, with survey data available at https://www.bds.org.uk/index.php/research/ deer-distribution-survey. For Scotland, deer density polygons are available at https:// gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural-spaces/dataset.jsp?dsid=DCD.

Landscape-scale assessment: putting sites into their wider context  | 15

Figure 3.5  Distribution of Trollius europaeus. (© Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland)

Climate change projections are available at http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov. uk/. Tree species growth in relation to climate and soil conditions is built into the Ecological Site Classification; the latest version (https://www.forestry.gov.uk/esc) incorporates future climate change projections for the 2050 and 2080 low and high scenarios of UKCIP02 (http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/23214). Other possible impacts of climate change on habitats and vegetation are discussed in Carey (2015), with an assessment of the risks and opportunities for individual species in England given at http://publications. naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4674414199177216. Phenological observations have increasingly been used to explore the possible effects of climate change (Sparks and Carey 1995; Sparks 2000; Sparks and Crick 2015; Sparks et al. 2016). Woodland species are included in the recording of events in Nature’s Calendar (https://naturescalendar.woodlandtrust.org.uk/). Direct observations of species and habitat changes are made as part of the Environmental Change Network programme (http://www.ecn.ac.uk/).

16  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

3.9  Collation and analysis of landscape-level surveys The now widespread availability of Geographic Information Systems, including free systems such as QGIS (http://www.qgis.org/en/site/), means that information can be overlaid in a variety of different ways. The outputs can be made more, or less, specific by including or excluding different categories of sites or data. By contrast, in the first stages of the Ancient Woodland Inventory in the 1980s, researchers summarised what was known about a site on one sheet of tracing paper using coloured pens (Goldberg et al. 2011)! The Making Space for Nature report on the state of England’s SSSI system concluded that there was a need for more, bigger, better and more joined-up conservation areas (Lawton 2010). Sites are now frequently viewed as part of wider networks of habitats (Peterken et al. 1995; Watts et al. 2005; 2007). Increased computing power means that it is easy to compare landscapes in terms of their woodland cover, the size distribution of patches and distances between patches (e.g FRAGSTATS; http://fragstats.software. informer.com/4.0/). The Woodland Creation & Ecological Networks (WReN) project is a major study looking at the effects of isolation, forest age and species richness across a range of groups (Humphrey et al. 2013; Watts et al. 2016). Arable fields are more ‘hostile’ to the spread of, for example, a wood mouse than tall grass with scattered scrub. Thus, how joined up the landscape is; that is, the likelihood of species being able to move from one site to another, depends on the nature of the (a)

(b)

Figure 3.6  Habitat network connectivity in Wales modelled for (a) broadleaved woodland and (b) ­upland heathland (from Latham et al. 2013). The maps show the distribution of existing habitat patches and how likely they are to be connected as a network, taking account of the degree to which different intervening habitats may present barriers to movement. (Contains Natural Resources Wales information, © Natural Resources Wales and database right. All rights reserved.)

Landscape-scale assessment: putting sites into their wider context  | 17 intervening landscape as well as the absolute distance between patches (Adriaensen et al. 2003). This relative cost of moving through different habitats can be used to weight the actual distance between patches to give a better idea of the degree of connectivity within a landscape. Such analyses may suggest whether species populations in a group of woods were likely to be linked through the exchange of individuals and genes; or they may be used in locating new woodland to provide the most useful stepping stones or linkages for species dispersal through the landscape (Figure 3.6) (Catchpole 2006; Latham et al. 2013) (https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/ managing-land/habitat-networks).

CHAPTER 4

Site assessment surveys Questions to be addressed: •

How do we decide whether one site is of more value than another, and hence, should receive a greater level of protection, for example through some formal designation, special treatment or through not being damaged?

•

What aspects of the site do we need to consider when making decisions and recommendations concerning its management (including the decision not to manage)?

4.1  Introduction Ratcliffe (1977) set out the assessment of conservation value through a series of criteria (Table 4.1) and these subsequently formed the basis of site assessment in the Guidelines for the Selection of Biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (NCC 1989; Kirby 1993). The site survey methods developed in the 1980s reflected these criteria and are still relevant, but there are additional methods available now for capturing information on many of the elements considered. The guidelines are under review at the time of writing: Part 1 has been revised and is available at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/SSSI_GuidelinesPart1_ PUBLICATION_Dec2013v2.pdf; the remaining sections are also under revision (http:// jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2303). The underlying principles have not changed. The overall process of evaluation retains a strong element of expert judgement, as well as quantitative information on species diversity. The criteria should be seen as facets on a gemstone: one face may be brilliant even if others are not. Some by their nature face in different ways. A wood with a high diversity of vegetation types may be rich in species, but each individual vegetation type patch may be small and not very representative of that type. Woods rich in bryophytes may consist of communities that have few vascular plants. Selection and assessment should try to take account of as many groups of species as possible, although frequently data on the vegetation and structure are the most easily collected.

Site assessment surveys  | 19 Table 4.1  Criteria for judging nature conservation value (Ratcliffe 1977), with amendments from Bainbridge et al. (2013).

NCR criterion

Relation to commonly recorded field features

Size

Extent of site, area of semi-natural woodland, area of ancient woodland

Diversity

Number of plant species, variety of structures, variety of subsidiary habitats/transitions to adjacent land, number of species of other groups

Naturalness

Absence of introduced species, lack of recent management, type of woodland structure, vegetation patterns reflecting environmental gradients

Rarity

Presence of rare species or features

Ecological coherence

Place in ecological/geographical unit: location and nature of adjacent land, relation to landscape woodland pattern

Fragility

Sensitivity of woodland type or particular species to loss/damage

Typicalness

Based on vegetation types, structures, location in landscape

Recorded history

Structure of trees (coppice, pollards), old banks and other historical features on the ground

Potential value

Features that could be restored, e.g. remove introduced species; or management that could be improved, e.g. change grazing regime

Intrinsic appeal

This was included in Ratcliffe (1977) but has been excluded from the 2013 revision

NCR: Nature Conservation Review.

4.2  Why focus on recording vascular plant species and structure? Vascular plants are relatively easy to record. They do not fly away, or only come out at night, or hide themselves in bushes; many can be found for much of the year, and a lot more people are familiar with them than with some other groups, such as lichens or dead-wood beetles. The ground flora in most woods comprises about 80% of the vascular plant species present. We know a lot about the requirements of individual species, which can then be used to interpret conditions and variations in woods, across time and space (Hill et al. 2004; Grime et al. 2007). For example: •

Anomalies in the distribution of plant species triggered the work of George Peterken and Oliver Rackham, which helped to unravel the significance of woodland history for modern conservation policy and practice.

20  |  Woodland Survey Handbook •

The lack of ground vegetation under many plantations provided an easily understood message when we were arguing the case for not converting ancient broadleaved woodland to conifers.

•

Swathes of bluebells are appreciated by the public, and the impact of deer on their growth and flowering is easier to demonstrate than the long-term effects of browsing on sapling regeneration or bird breeding densities.

An understanding of which plant species are present in a wood, how abundant they are and how they are distributed can therefore be used as an easily obtained, valuable first assessment. It cannot be assumed, however, that ‘if the plants are all right, so is everything else’. For other species groups, such as birds, insects and lichens, the detailed botanical composition of a wood, for example which National Vegetation Type it belongs to, is less important than the structure of the wood: the density and distribution of the different vegetation layers, the amount and composition of tree regeneration, the size of the trees, the nutrient status of their bark, the occurrence of glades and wet areas, the presence of specific microhabitats such as large dead trees and the way their wood rots. Describing the woodland structure picks up some of these points and can be done in relatively simple ways to complement the plant records.

4.3  Accessing past surveys Many surveys based on this sort of approach were carried out in the 1980s and have been conducted widely since. The results tend not to have been published except in summary form, but the data may be available via the National Biodiversity Network or through groups such as the Conservation Agencies and Wildlife Trusts. In Scotland, the results from the most recent extensive surveys are available at http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/ supporting/strategy-policy-guidance/native-woodland-survey-of-scotland-nwss.

CHAPTER 5

A basic walkabout survey Questions to be addressed: •

What is the overall composition and structure of the vegetation in the wood?

•

What vascular plants are present and which are most abundant?

•

What is the structure of the tree and shrub layer?

•

What subsidiary habitats are present?

•

What signs of past/present management are apparent?

5.1  Things to consider before you start No field survey should be undertaken without the permission of the owner or their agent. It may be necessary to clear surveys with a shooting tenant or gamekeeper as well. Determining ownership can be time consuming and will usually need to be organised in advance of the field season. Surveyors should not be expected to identify owners, obtain permission and survey the site all on the same day. All interpretations and analyses of the results depend on the quality of the surveys in the first place. Time spent on training surveyors is not wasted: the surveyors will work more efficiently and quickly, and produce more consistent results. It is possible for one person to carry out surveys on their own, but there are benefits from working in pairs in terms of surveyor morale (particularly on difficult days), consistency of output (cross-checking) and personal safety. This last applies especially to urban woods and those in remote or difficult locations. Quality-control checks, even for experienced surveyors, should also be considered; see, for example, procedures in Kirby et al. (2005) and Robertson and Grieve (2010).

5.2  Outputs of a walkabout survey A walkabout survey should produce an overview of the composition and structure of the woodland area (Appendix 1). The walk should take in as much of the variation as possible in the time available. Depending on conditions, sites of about 20–30  ha can usually be covered in a day. The main outputs are a list of vascular plants seen, with some indication of their abundance, a description of the structure and management (known or inferred

22  |  Woodland Survey Handbook from the structure) of the woodland, and a basic vegetation map. In some areas of the UK, especially in the west, a record of at least the commoner woodland bryophytes should also be made.

5.3  Planning and mapping a route Before conducting the survey, site maps can be created or downloaded from various Geographic Information System (GIS) packages and websites, or remotely sensed images such as Google Earth. A scale of 1:10,000 is generally convenient for this type of work. The maps may be annotated beforehand with information from other data sources to highlight areas that should be visited because they may pick up new variation, or areas that should be avoided, for example if there are ownership or safety issues (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1  Identifying features and areas that should be considered when planning a survey walk route. (Base image © Google Earth)

Sticking to the easy route through a wood may mean that important elements are missed. Areas where new species or features are likely to be detected include along woodland boundaries, streams and wet areas, rock outcrops and open areas (whether permanent open space or temporary clearings), and where there are variations in slope, soil type or management. If there are no obvious likely hotspots to investigate, the route should cover the site in as even a manner as possible. During the walk, field observations are added either directly on to the map or through target notes. Notes and annotations may cover the main species, the location of rare species or veteran trees, vegetation boundaries, recent management activity, archaeological features, invasive species, disturbance from fly-tipping, and so on. The value of photographs for recording the state of woods and assessing change has long been recognised, but in the past their use in woodland surveys was limited by the

A basic walkabout survey  | 23 degree of shade. Even if pictures were taken, there was no way of seeing what sort of image you had taken, for several days if not weeks; and the cost of developing the film was incurred even if the images turned out to be useless. The development of digital photography has transformed the potential to use photography in surveys to supplement target notes (Box 5.1), for example using the built-in Global Positioning System (GPS) tagging of pictures is now available on many cameras and phones. Field mapping may be done free-hand, using the old standby of clipboard and paper. The introduction of reliable hand-held GPS can make this more accurate, although the location signal may be poor under the canopy (from experience, getting to within about 5 m of the point may be the best that can be expected). Data-loggers and digitising tablets are increasingly used for direct recording in the field, for example in the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and Countryside Survey projects, including the use of ‘toughbook’ laptops loaded with specialist recording software. Sites such as https://sylva.org.uk/myforest/ provide tools for recording survey results.

Box 5.1  Use of photographs to complement target notes 1. Steep sides to gorge; elm, ash, hazel woodland with flushed ground flora; Deschampsia cespitosa, Brachypodium sylvaticum, Fragaria vesca, Circaea lutetiana, Athyrium filix-femina. Small area of young beech and occasional mature beech to 80 cm DBH. Dense ash regeneration to 1.5 m tall. Tilia cordata on cliff on east side just downstream of bridge. Many signs of ash dieback, presumed Chalara, all the way down the river.

24  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

A basic walkabout survey  | 25

2. Small riverside flats with Petasites, Oenanthe croccata. Occasional mature oak, often more on the upper edge of gorge. Locally dense hazel. Occasional large sycamore but little sign of regeneration.

26  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

3. Fields with scattered trees and scrub, merging into narrow ‘woodland’ strip by river itself. Field with hawthorn and bracken, some recent regeneration of birch and alder (declines in grazing?). Herb-rich grassland patches. Landslip track on opposite bank.

A basic walkabout survey  | 27

4. Old elm by river. Scattered large ash. Dense hazel, old stools. Filipendula ulmaria, Rubus fruticosus and R. caesius, Brachypodium sylvaticum, Athyrium filix-femina, occasional Hyacinthoides non-scripta.

5.3.1  Precision on the map and in the field There may be a difference between the precision with which a feature can be recorded on a map – which may be down to a few metres, allowing for the accuracy of GPS – and the reality on the ground. A woodland bank or the locations of veteran trees can be represented precisely by a line or points on a map, but other features may be more fuzzy. When transferring woodland boundaries from an aerial photograph to a map, it should be borne in mind that the canopy of boundary trees may spread beyond the physical boundary (such as a fence) at ground level. Vegetation type boundaries drawn as precise lines on maps may be rather indeterminate zones on the ground (Cherrill and McClean 1999; Hearn et al. 2011). Different observers may record slightly different interpretations of the same pattern and this may subsequently be interpreted as a change in the feature recorded. For example, Fred Bloggs draws the limits of a patch of sycamore around just the main clump, excluding scattered outliers; Arabella Mint, a few years later, includes the scattered outliers in her map. Comparing the two maps could lead to the conclusion that there has been a major spread of sycamore, which is not actually the case.

28  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

5.4  Recording plants on walkabouts The list of the vascular plants seen on a walk through a wood is effectively the record of a transect of varying length, which is dependent on the time available, and width. Most species within a few metres of the walk line should be spotted, but the effective width will be larger for tall conspicuous species such as foxglove and less for seedlings hidden among taller vegetation. Woodland species are rarely evenly distributed across a site. There is an initial burst of species recording as the common species are picked up; the rate of encountering new species then declines, until a new patch of variation is encountered, such as a change of vegetation type, a ride or a recently felled area (Figure 5.2). Reasonably competent surveyors do not differ much in the length of lists produced from a wood at a given time of year, with about 55–75% of species in common (Kirby et al. 1986), dropping to 50–60% species in common if the season differs greatly.

Figure 5.2  Accumulation of vascular plant species with time on a walk through the same area of Wytham Woods in April and May.

Except in very small sites, walkabout surveys are unlikely to record all the plant species present in a wood. There are the species that are not in the walk sight line, species in the woodland soil seed bank (Warr et al. 1994) that are not currently present in the aboveground vegetation, and others such as many orchids that do not necessarily produce aboveground stems every year (Table 5.1). Over longer periods the species present may change as some are lost from the woods, while others colonise. The latter may be particularly significant for the development of the flora in newly created woodland, as, for example, noted by Woodruffe-Peacock (1918) and Harmer et al. (2001).

5.4.1  Recording species abundance The abundance of species seen should be assessed, usually according to the DAFOR scale – D, dominant; A, abundant; F, frequent; O, occasional; R, rare – sometimes with the prefix L for local. These terms have no precise definition and observers vary in their use. However, with practice assigning DAFOR scores takes only a few minutes at the end of the walk and there is a broad agreement between such assessments and more quantitative records (Table 5.2). At the least, they distinguish, for subsequent surveyors, the species that were widespread across the whole wood from those seen only once or twice.

A basic walkabout survey  | 29 Table 5.1  Species records most likely to be affected by timing of survey or because of surveyor identification issues (based on Sykes and Horrill 1979).

Species

Dies back by mid-summer, Identification may be or only visible for short difficult to species level, period each year e.g. flowers and fruits needed

Adoxa moschatellina

×

Allium ursinum

×

Anemone nemorosa

×

Arum maculatum*

×

Alchemilla spp.

×

Arctium spp.

×

Betula spp.

×

Conopodium majus*

×

Carex spp.

×

Cirsium spp.

×

Crepis spp.

×

Epilobium spp.

×

Epipactis spp.

×

Euphrasia spp. Gagea lutea

×

Galium spp.

×

Various grasses

×

Hieracium spp.

×

Hyacinthoides non-scripta*

×

Hypericum spp. Hypopitys monotropa

× ×

Juncus spp. Lathraea squamaria

× ×

Leontodon spp.

×

Luzula spp.

×

Mentha spp.

×

Myosotis spp.

×

Narcissus pseudonarcissus

×

Neottia ovata

×

Neottia nidus-avis

×

Ophioglossum vulgatum Paris quadrifolia* Populus spp.

× ×

× ×

30  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Table 5.1 – continued

Species

Dies back by mid-summer, Identification may be or only visible for short difficult to species level, period each year e.g. flowers and fruits needed

Quercus spp.

×

Ranunculus ficaria

×

Rosa spp.

×

Rubus spp.

×

Rumex spp.

×

Salix spp.

×

Sorbus spp.

×

Taraxacum spp.

×

Tilia spp.

×

Ulmus spp.

×

Viola spp.

×

*Fruit or stem remnants may be visible for longer.

5.4.2  Sources of variation in the species recorded The abundance, and even the presence, of some vernal species may be underestimated by surveys in late summer (Table 5.1). This under-recording may need to be allowed for where comparisons are being made between surveys carried out at different times of the year (Kirby et al. 2005). Surveyors differ in the species that they record, particularly with similar-looking or closely related species, for example Holcus lanatus/H. mollis, Dryopteris filix-mas/D. affinis, and for ‘difficult groups’ such as roses, sedges, hawkweeds and brambles. This variation can be reduced through initial training and quality-control checks built into the surveys. If there remains uncertainty over the consistency of identifications it may be advisable to group species in any analysis and interpretation. Table 5.2  Number of species with a given DAFOR score (from walk surveys) compared to their frequency in 36 randomly placed quadrats, each 200 m2 (14.1×14.1 m) (Kirby et al. 1986).

DAFOR rating

Frequency of occurrence (out of 36 quadrats) 0

1–6

7–12

13–18

19–24

Abundant

4

Frequent Occasional Rare

25–36

7 14

25

3

3

4

5

9

6

4

1

1

DAFOR: dominant, abundant, frequent, occasional, rare. No species were classed as Dominant.

A basic walkabout survey  | 31 Other factors, such as the weather, rough terrain, the number of midges or the height of the brambles, although never, to the authors’ knowledge, quantified, can reduce the morale and efficiency of surveyors, as can complicated or unfamiliar protocols and heavy equipment. A pair of surveyors working together are likely to give more consistent results, as each picks up some of the species that the other misses. This increases the time required (person-days) but it may be offset by the increased reliability of the results. Paired working is anyway desirable, and may be necessary, for safety reasons.

5.4.3  Interpreting the species list Standard recording cards (Appendix 1) or lists on data-loggers make the recording process easier in the field and can highlight species that are more likely to be of interest. In woodland site surveys, more attention and value are likely to be given to species associated with woodland than to those more associated with open habitats such as grassland, heath or moorland. An initial list of woodland-associated species was given in Ratcliffe (1977) and developed by Peterken (1981) and others to form the basis of the survey card list (Kirby 1988). Separately, Peterken (1974) and Rackham (2003, originally published in 1980) had started to develop lists of species particularly associated with ancient woodland, which became known as ancient woodland indicators. Such lists have since been suggested for various regions (Rose and O’Reilly 2006; Glaves et al. 2009) (Table 5.3). While some species are found on several lists, others show strong regional differences in their faithfulness Table 5.3  Published lists of species suggested as being associated with ancient woodland in different areas of Britain.

Region

Reference

Pembrokeshire

J. Buchanan and R. Fuller (in Rose and O’Reilly 2006)

Wales

Castle et al. (2008)

South-west England

Rose (1999)

Somerset

Somerset Environmental Record Centre (in Rose and O’Reilly 2006)

Dorset

A. Horsfall (in Rose and O’Reilly 2006)

Southern England

Rose (1999)

South-east England

Rose (1999)

Eastern England

Rackham (2003); Rose (1999)

Lincolnshire

Peterken (1974; 2000)

Worcestershire

J. Day (in Rose and O’Reilly 2006)

Malvern Hills

A. Hill (2003)

Peak District

P. Phillipson and colleagues (in Rose and O’Reilly 2006)

North Yorkshire

Gulliver (1995)

Northumberland

Lunn (2004)

Angus

Tidswell (1990)

Scotland

Crawford (2009)

32  |  Woodland Survey Handbook to ancient woodland sites. Some lists are based largely on the field experience of local botanists, others on more formal analysis of species distributions in relation to independent verification of site history. Some lists are quite short, others much longer depending on the richness of the woods in the region, but also on how strict the association with ancient woodland had to be before people included that species as an indicator: some accepted looser associations than others. The number of ‘indicators’ found in different regions cannot therefore be easily compared. Kirby et al. (2012) used a collation of ancient woodland indicator lists as a basis for separating the longer woodland survey card list into ‘woodland specialists’ and ‘woodland generalists’, other species then being classed as ‘non-woodland’ species. This is a fairly crude division but there were clear differences in the traits of the species in the three groups, similar to those found in continental studies (Hermy et al. 1999). Ellenberg (1988) and Ellenberg et al. (1991) published a series of scores (mostly on a 1–10 scale) for species tolerance of shading, low nitrogen levels, pH, and so on. Hill et al. (2004) adapted these for British conditions (Table 5.4). Another major set of traits were assembled by Grime et al. (2007) in their investigation of plant strategies (Table 5.5). Both of these systems have become widely used in interpreting differences in conditions between sites or parts of sites, or over time. Other plant trait data sets exist, for example the Ecoflora database (http://ecoflora.org.uk/). Many species are also covered by individual species accounts in the Biological Flora of the British Isles (https://www.britishecologicalsociety. org/publications/journals/journal-of-ecology/biological-flora-database/). Table 5.4  Summary of the Ellenberg approach (Ellenberg 1988; Ellenberg et al. 1991).

Ellenberg indicator values F: Soil moisture

L: Light

N: Soil nitrogen

1

Plants of extreme dryness

1 Plants in deep shade

1 Sites poor in available N

2

Between 1 and 3

2 Between 1 and 3

2 Between 1 and 3

3

Dry site indicators

3 Shade plants

3 More often N-deficient soils

4

Between 3 and 5

4 Between 3 and 5

4 Between 3 and 5

5

Moist site indicators

5 Plants of half shade

5 Average N availability

6

Between 5 and 7

6 Between 5 and 7

6 Between 5 and 7

7

Damp site indicators

7 Generally in well-lit places

7 More often N-rich sites

8

Between 7 and 9

8 Light-loving plants

8 Between 7 and 9

9

Wet site indicators

9 Plants of full light

9 Extremely rich N soils

10–12 Flooded/aquatic conditions Values have been assigned on a scale of 1–9 (or 12) for a species’ affinity for/tolerance of soil moisture, light and soil nitrogen. In addition, there are indicator values for: T, temperature (low values equate to tolerance of low temperature regimes); K, continentality (low values are indicative of more Atlantic distributions for a species); and R, soil reaction (low values indicate occurrence in acid soil conditions).

A basic walkabout survey  | 33 Table 5.5  Summary of the functional attribute approach (Hodgson et al. 1995; Grime et al. 2007).

Attributes used in the functional attribute analysis (a) Strategy type: C, competitive; S, stress-tolerant; R, ruderal; CR, competitive–ruderal; SC, stress-tolerant competitive; SR, stress-tolerant ruderal; CSR, intermediate CSR strategist (b) Commonest habitat type in which species occurred in surveys in central England (c) Number of polycarpic perennials (more likely to occur in undisturbed conditions) (d) Regenerative strategy: production of persistent soil seed bank, production of widely dispersed seeds, seed weight (e) Geographic distribution in Europe: number of species showing some latitudinal or longitudinal bias to their distribution (f) Present status (whether increasing or decreasing in Britain, where data available) (g) Height of mature plants

As examples of how such lists might be used, increases in species with high Ellenberg N  values close to agricultural units may indicate effects of nitrogen emissions, while changes in the number of species with high L scores over time may suggest changes in the shadiness of stands. Increases in species with a ruderal or competitive strategy may reflect increases in disturbance and openness that follow woodland management activities (Pitcairn et al. 2002; Ling 2003; Kirby 2015a).

5.5  Describing woodland structure Elton (1966) eloquently described the importance of vegetation structure for animal communities, and this has been confirmed and emphasised in subsequent work. Open rides and glades are key features for many woodland butterflies, dense shrub layers for nesting and foraging for some bird species, ground flora cover for small mammals of the forest floor, and veteran trees for saproxylic invertebrates. The structural pattern of the wood may, for these groups, be more important than the detail of vegetation composition. Woodland structure (Table 5.6) is closely linked to past and present management (or lack of it) interacting with processes such as pulses of regeneration, windthrow, tree diseases and pressure from large herbivores. This information can be vital evidence in interpreting the origin and past treatment of the wood and should form a key element of decisions on the future treatment of the wood. Prior use of aerial photographs, lidar and satellite images may help to pick out likely variations in structure. In woods managed for timber, stock maps should record the age and composition of the different compartments. Tick-box forms (for the presence of different categories of trees or cover; see Appendix 1, sheet 2) may be used to summarise the variations seen along with target notes and annotated maps. Photographs can be used, for example, to illustrate the density of the shrub layer, the form of trees, the presence of a browse-line, the main ground flora dominants, epiphytic communities on tree trunks, areas of disturbance and features such as wood-banks (Box 5.2).

34  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Table 5.6  Some basic ways of looking at woodland structure.

Possible categories

Comment

Age structure of the tree and shrub population

Seedlings, saplings, young trees, mature trees, veteran trees

The age structure (usually assessed indirectly by the size of the stems) provides a snapshot of the dynamics of the stand; lack of younger age classes may have implications for the future composition and structure of the site; mature and veteran trees suggest potential for dead-wood invertebrates and epiphytic species

Growth form of the trees

Maiden stems, coppice stools, shrubs, pollards, climbers

The different growth forms provide different potential microhabitats, e.g. potential for rot holes, low branching for nest sites. The growth forms will also provide indications of past treatment of the wood

Vertical structure

Ground (moss), field, shrub (understorey), canopy layers

Different species are associated with each stratum in a wood (Elton 1966); dense understoreys, for example, are particularly associated with nesting sites for many migrant songbirds

Horizontal structure and spatial patterning

Distribution and scale of patches of different ages and tree species across a wood, occurrence of open spaces, wet areas, large fallen trees, rock outcrops

The size and shape of patches, open areas, etc., will affect which species can live in them. They also affect the extent of ‘edges’ between different patches and many species, particularly of invertebrates, are strongly linked to edge habitats

Trees are usually single stemmed, in, or close below, the main canopy/overstorey, and usually at least 5 m tall. They may be referred to as: •

Maiden stems – single-stemmed individuals grown from seed or (in plantations) transplants.

•

Standards – usually isolated trees, grown among coppice to provide larger dimension timbers; often, in neglected coppice, now large, with dead lower branches where younger growth has started to overtop them.

•

Singled trees – stems that originated in a coppice stool, often clear from the slight curve and swelling at the base, where all but one of the stems has been removed to allow them to form a high forest canopy.

•

Veteran trees – old or large for the species and showing several of the following features: hollowing trunk, possibly with openings to the outside, stag-headedness (dead, antler-like branches extending beyond the crown), fruiting bodies of heart-rot fungi, cavities (e.g. where branches have broken away), sap runs or naturally formed water pools in branch hollows, very rough or creviced bark, and aerial roots growing down into the decaying trunk or branches.

A basic walkabout survey  | 35

Box 5.2  Illustrations of different structures

Relatively even-aged, mature high forest; maiden stems; field and canopy layers well developed but little shrub layer.

Young coppice regrowth forming a shrub layer, with scattered maiden stems as standard trees, providing an open canopy; the different ages of coppice regrowth provide horizontal heterogeneity.

36  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Alder coppice, now forming canopy; understorey of shorter shoots growing up from stool with dense field layer.

Mature open-grown oak, now surrounded by much younger maiden stems.

A basic walkabout survey  | 37

Open upland wood-pasture, with veteran alder pollards.

Phoenix tree that fell over but is now regrowing vertically along the stem.

38  |  Woodland Survey Handbook •

Ancient trees – those which have reached a great age in comparison with others of the same species, although they may not be that large; they include maiden stems showing retrenched (reduced) canopies as well as old pollards. All ancient trees are veterans, but not all veterans are ancient as some of the features such as hollowing may develop in younger individuals.

•

Phoenix trees – those that have fallen over, remain rooted at the base and have then grown a new vertical stem, either from the tip of the stem, or from branch buds along the stem. In very heavily browsed conditions, these may comprise the only young trees present.

•

Pollards – trees cut at about 2–3 m from the ground, such that the regrowth is above the height of browsing animals such as deer and cattle; most often found in woodpastures or on the boundaries of stands or woods. The trunk of a pollard is quite often hollow and may be referred to as the bolling. A lapsed pollard is one that has not been cut recently, such that the growth from the top of the bolling may have developed into large, wide-spreading limbs.

The understorey/shrub layer consists of the low cover of woody stems between about 1–2 m height and 5 m height. Species such as bramble, rose and honeysuckle are usually classed with the ground flora even if they are over 1 m tall, but may sometimes be included in the shrub layer. •

Shrubs – small, woody species, often with multiple stems. Surveys vary as to what is classed as a shrub; for example, crab apple may be classed as either a tree or a shrub, while hazel is usually classed as a shrub but can form the main canopy on some sites. Hazel-dominated woodland is especially characteristic of the oceanic west of Scotland and hazel seems to have been the dominant species in woodland in the early postglacial period.

•

Young trees – individuals of canopy-forming species that are only temporarily in the understorey.

•

Coppice regrowth – multiple stems coming off one stump, which may have been cut many times and then allowed to regrow, usually at less than 1 m off the ground. When browsing pressure is reasonably low, hazel will naturally form a multistemmed stool, sending up new shoots each year. Whereas this sort of structure may indicate past coppicing in much of England, in the west and north of Scotland it is more likely to be a natural form. Where browsing pressure is higher, new shoots may be heavily browsed, and hazel may develop into a single- or few-stemmed tree. Occasionally, there are stools that seem to have been cut somewhere between the typical height for coppice and that for pollards; these are referred to as coppards.

Regeneration can take a variety of forms: •

‘Seedlings’ (usually taken as anything less than 30 cm tall) – these include seedlings proper (first year growth) but also older stems that are regularly bitten back so that they remain among the ground flora. These may be several years old.

A basic walkabout survey  | 39 •

Saplings (young growth 30–200 cm tall, less than 2 cm diameter) – these are a good sign that there is potential recruitment to the upper layers, but they are still vulnerable to browsing.

•

Suckers – produced from the roots, sometimes in profusion, by species such as aspen, wild service tree, wild cherry and bird cherry. They may be classed with seedlings and saplings for most purposes.

The distinction between seedlings and saplings varies in different surveys, so the definition used should be clearly specified, and used consistently, to allow comparisons to be made between surveys and changes to be observed over time. The NFI, for example, defines saplings as ‘less than 4 cm DBH [diameter at breast height] and 50 cm tall or greater’, whereas the Native Woodland Survey for Scotland used the terms ‘visible regeneration’ (above the height of the surrounding vegetation but less than 1 m tall, and still highly susceptible to browsing damage) and ‘established regeneration’ (greater than 1 m tall and less than 7 cm DBH; less susceptible to browsing damage). The abundance of different elements of the woodland structure can be described on the walk using the DAFOR scale or subjective estimates of the cover of different layers; for example, Mature Trees Abundant, Saplings Rare, Canopy cover 80%, Understorey 25% (Box 5.2). More precise measures, usually based on quadrat or transect recording, are described in section 6.3.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 5.3  (a) Desirable structured ride edge (from Warren and Fuller 1993; © JNCC); examples of (b) good and (c) poor edge structure in practice.

40  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

5.6  Subsidiary habitats within woodland Subsidiary habitats within woods include glades, rides, ponds, streams and cliffs. Their presence and character should be noted on a walkabout survey since they add considerably to the conservation interest of a site. Many of the vascular plants recorded in Lincolnshire woods were associated with open spaces (Peterken and Francis 1999), while wet areas will host a wide variety of invertebrates not found elsewhere in the wood. Rides, usually grassy tracks through woods, have been a particular focus of woodland conservation efforts, because of their importance for many invertebrates that use the flowers that can proliferate along well-structured rides (Figure 5.3) (Warren and Fuller 1993). Sometimes these habitat patches may be extensive enough to justify separate detailed survey in their own right; for instance, the fields derived from wartime clearance in the middle of Monks Wood are important grassland habitat in a Cambridgeshire context. Otherwise, short target notes or a tick-box record may be sufficient (Box 5.3 and Table 5.7).

Table 5.7  Part of the habitat recording card used in surveys described in Kirby et al. (2005): surveyors cross through features encountered on their walk.

Habitats – dead wood Live/dead

Standing dead 10 cm diam.

Fallen, broken

Fallen uprooted

Log, very rotten

Fallen branch >10 cm diam.

Hollow trees

Rot holes

Stump 10 cm diam.

Habitats – rock Stones

Rocks 5–50 cm

Boulders >50 cm

Scree

Rock outcrop 5 m

Rock ledge

Moss-covered rock

Gully

Rock piles

Exposed gravel/ sand

Exposed mineral soil

Small pool 20 m2

Stream – slow 5 m

Bottom rock

Bottom gravel

Bottom sand

Bottom mud

Bottom peat

Aquatic vegetation

Spring

Marsh/bog

Ditch/drain – dry

Ditch/drain – wet

Glade 5–12 m grassy

Glade >12 m grassy

Glade 5–12 m mixed

Glade >12 m mixed

Glade 5–12 m boggy

Glade >12 m boggy

Rocky knoll 12 m

Field

Path 1–5 m

Ride >5 m

Track – non-surfaced

Track – metalled

Road – tarmac

Habitats – aquatic

Habitats – open

A basic walkabout survey  | 41

Box 5.3  Subsidiary habitat recording in woodland Open space

Clearings, glades, rides, wayleaves, which may be temporary or permanently open. Factors to consider: size, orientation, nature of transition to closed canopy, degree of shading, permanence, whether linked to other open space or open habitat outside the wood. Wet ground

Bogs, fens, flushes and other wet, squidgy ground. Factors to consider: whether on peat or mineral soil; how wet, acidity, associated vegetation, shading. Base-rich tufa seepages can have a distinctive invertebrate assemblage so are worth noting.

42  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Water bodies

Ponds, streams, rivers, springs, fire-ponds, deep puddles in rutted tracks. Factors to consider: whether still or moving water, size, nature of substrate, depth, type of margin, shading, any associated vegetation, trophic status. Rock features

Cliffs, gorges, screes, surface stone, limestone pavement. Factors to consider: size, type, associated vegetation (including bryophytes and lichens), whether well drained or wet.

A basic walkabout survey  | 43

Dead wood

Fallen logs, large dead branches in trees, hollows within living trees. Factors to consider: abundance, size of pieces, whether standing or fallen, in shade or open, associated species such as fungal brackets. Other

Old bomb-dumps, gardens, buildings, sawdust heaps, rusting cars, etc.

44  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

5.7  Surrounding land The surrounding land should be recorded in a similar way to the subsidiary habitats (e.g. description or tick-boxes) (Table 5.8), because it can have major impacts on the nature of the wood. There may be negative edge effects caused by drift of pesticides or fertiliser overthrow from adjacent arable land (Gove et al. 2007), or positive effects where the wood grades into another semi-natural habitat. The nature of the boundary (ditch, bank, fence, etc.) is often relevant from a management perspective; for example, is it stock, human and deer proof? Some features such as old wood-banks may also help with understanding the past history and treatment of the site (see Section 6.7). Table 5.8  Examples of categories that may be used to record surrounding land (Kirby et al. 2005): surveyors tick those that occur next to the wood or mark them on the accompanying map. Wood – deciduous

Housing

Quarry/mine

Wood – coniferous

Industrial

Rubbish dumps/tip

Wood – mixed

Orchard

Heath/moorland

Scrub

Arable

Marsh/fen/bog

Road

Permanent pasture

River

Railway

Rough grazing

Lake

5.8  Vegetation maps from walkabout surveys Vegetation maps should be drawn in the field (on paper or using mapping tablets) to reflect the observed variation. The parcels may be simply described by target notes and/ or assigned to predetermined types such as those of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) (see Section 6.2). Surveyors should try to gain a quick overview of the variation across the site before they start mapping the main areas of distinct differences in the vegetation. This should include variations in the woody layers, such as patches of lime or hornbeam in southeastern woods, or areas of aspen or hazel in upland oakwoods, and in major ground flora dominants, even if these are not thought likely to affect the overall NVC type (Figure 5.4). Quadrats may be taken to amplify the target notes, to check the identification of the vegetation type or in cases where the identification is uncertain (Kirby et al. 1991; Castle and Mileto 2003). Core areas may be clearly distinct but there can be problems with deciding where the boundaries between them should be drawn; designating a boundary zone may be more appropriate than representing it as a single line. Vegetation maps on their own should be treated with caution when trying to detect minor changes in patch size or composition over time, although they can help to show major changes (Hearn et al. 2011). There may also be major changes in species abundance, for example the decline of Mercurialis perennis at Monks Wood (Cooke 2006) and the spread of Brachypodium sylvaticum at Wytham Woods (Kirby and Thomas 2000a) over time, without the overall NVC type changing.

A basic walkabout survey  | 45

Figure 5.4  National Vegetation Classification map showing main communities, boundary zone, local variations and point features.

An alternative approach to complete mapping involves recording the vegetation at a series of points (usually through quadrat records) spread evenly across the site, classifying each point and then extrapolating the boundaries accordingly. The process can be improved through the use of aerial photographs or other remote sensing to identify changes in canopy appearance or topographic features that may coincide with the likely boundary.

5.9  Management Surveys may also be used as the basis for making initial decisions about what sorts of site management are likely to beneficial, and which more damaging to nature conservation interests. Most British woods have been managed to varying degrees at some time in the past few hundred years, if not for much longer (Linnard 1982; Rackham 2003; Smout et al. 2005). The current state of a wood therefore reflects the interaction of the underlying environment and its treatment (including periods of minimum intervention) up to the time of the visit. There are periods, even in a managed wood, when little actual activity takes place in a stand, interspersed by short periods of obvious and intense activity, for example when a coppice is cut or a high forest stand is thinned. If the visit coincides with a period of activity the wood may appear very heavily managed, but at another time it may appear almost neglected. Management may be good or bad for nature conservation depending on the circumstances, and past management is not necessarily a guide to what the future management will or should be. Some trends may, however, be unlikely to be quickly or easily changed. An understanding of woodland management for different objectives can therefore help in interpreting the site (Peterken 1993; Forestry Commission 2010).

46  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Box 5.4  Illustrations of woodland management: elements to consider for target notes and annotations on maps

Past coppice management: species, size and distribution of stools, when last cut, any standards present, their species and size.

Old pollards or other wide, low-branching trees, particularly if these are spread through the site, rather than just being on the edges, that may suggest a more open structure in the past, possibly wood-pasture.

A basic walkabout survey  | 47

Evidence of browsing/grazing history in the form of effects on the trees (browse-lines, lack of low foliage) and ground flora (dominance by graminoids or other unpalatable species such as bracken), ineffective fences or signs of the animals themselves (dung, wool, tracks).

Distribution and composition of younger maiden stems; typically likely to be less than 70 years old. These may have grown up either naturally following wartime fellings and subsequent regeneration release when rabbits died off, in which case they are likely to be predominantly native/naturalised fast growing species such as birch, ash, sycamore and Scots pine.

48  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Young stems that have been planted are more likely to have a regular distribution: planting lines are often visible and they are more likely to include non-native species, particularly spruces, firs, Corsican pine and larches.

Signs that timber production is important: obvious plantations, remnant planting lines with even-aged maiden trees, scatter of old conifers in broadleaved crop, piles of logs awaiting collection, ‘Danger Fire’ signs, old rabbit or deer fencing, good access roads and rides.

A basic walkabout survey  | 49

Amenity/landscape importance: ornamental plantings such as rhododendron, unusual conifers or broadleaves such as horse chestnut, rides aligned with particular vistas.

Game management: pheasant feeders, strawed rides, release pens, skylights cut in the canopy for shooting.

50  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Signs of different land uses in the past: ridge and furrow, old buildings, moats, remains of old field walls or hedges, or, as here, World War I practice trenches.

Signs of past and present management should be noted, usually as target notes and annotations on maps (Box 5.4). Rackham (2003) provides examples of interpreting what is on the ground and relating it to other documentary evidence for specific sites. Information on the actual management and objectives for the wood may also be available from the owner, manager or other local users of the wood. Both even and uneven-aged stands can be found in near-natural forests, but in general the more uniform the stand in terms of age or size of tree and species composition, the more likely it is to be the product of deliberate management, particularly if its boundaries coincide with rides, tracks or other human-made features.

5.10  Initial write-up Surveyors should try to make field notes legible and intelligible without the need to rewrite them later, although in bad weather this may not be possible. However, if the weather is really bad, the quality of the survey is likely to be poor, so it may be better to suspend the survey. Ideally, the field notes themselves (not just the subsequent reports) should be archived, so that they can be referred to subsequently if necessary. Oliver Rackham’s field notes, for example, are being digitised by Corpus Christi College (https://cudl.lib. cam.ac.uk/collections/rackham). This is an area where direct input in the field makes a major difference, by removing one stage in the recording process and hence one potential source of error (Box 5.5). Surveyors should be encouraged to draft a summary of each site visit, ideally within 24 hours, to supplement the field records. These reports should include initial comments

A basic walkabout survey  | 51

Box 5.5  The future for field recording? Increasingly, data are input directly to ‘toughbooks’; vegetation boundaries are drawn in the field on preloaded maps and aerial photographs, as with this example from the National Forest Inventory. (Images courtesy of Ben Ditchburn; © Forestry Commission)

and interpretations that may not be immediately obvious from the raw record to someone who has not visited the site. The summary can also include useful hints for future visits, such as the best place to access the site, or sections where there may be hazards such as mine shafts.

52  |  Woodland Survey Handbook The form of any subsequent formal analysis and report depends on the objectives of the survey, for example whether it is part of an academic research project or being drawn up to provide evidence for a public inquiry. Advice on good report-writing practice has been produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (https:// www.cieem.net/data/files/Publications/Ecological_Report_Writing_Dec2017.pdf). Results should always be copied back to the owner or manager of the wood; this will improve the chances that subsequent survey requests will be granted.

CHAPTER 6

Going beyond the walkabout: more detailed surveys Questions to be addressed: •

What is the distribution and abundance of species/assemblages?

•

What types of woodland are present and where?

•

How to quantify woodland structure?

•

What sort of soil variation exists

6.1  Quadrat recording in woodland for flora/vegetation Quadrats are plots, usually square (but sometimes rectangular or round) of fixed size, within which species are identified, most commonly vascular plants, but sometimes also bryophytes, lichens or fungi, depending on the objectives of the survey and competence of the surveyor. Commonly, quadrat data are used to look at the frequency of occurrence of species, their distribution patterns and the associations between them, for example as vegetation types. Square or rectangular plots can be easily laid out using a tape measure, with tent pegs for the corners. A circular plot can be defined from the central point, using the tape measure as a radius. For features such as hedgerows, woodland stream vegetation or ride edges, a long, narrow plot may be used. Surveyors need to be clear whether they are recording only species rooted in the plot, or those whose leaves fall within the plot, but may be rooted elsewhere. Ground flora recording is usually based on species rooted in the plot, but tree and shrub records generally include any species that is overshadowing the plot, whether rooted in it or not. Cover abundance within the plot is usually assessed on a percentage or Domin scale (Table 6.1). Other cover estimation techniques, such as the use of point quadrats (Floyd and Anderson 1987), have not been widely used in woodland conservation surveys. Domin scores are generally quicker to apply than assigning percentage cover scores directly. They are subjective and no great weight should be placed on Domin results that differ by just one place, or by a small percentage difference (Sykes et al. 1983). However, as with use of the DAFOR scale on walkabout surveys, the cover scores highlight species

54  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Table 6.1  The Domin scale commonly used in British woodland surveys (Rodwell 1991).

Score

Cover range

1

1 m long)

−−

Dead wood fallen (number of fallen lengths of the above size).

70  |  Woodland Survey Handbook •

Associated species: −−

Fungi (number of fruiting bodies in each of various categories, e.g. brackets)

−−

Epiphytes and hemi-parasites (presence of lichens, ferns, mistletoe, ivy, etc.)

−−

Invertebrates (presence of activity associated with substrates such as dead wood or fungi)

−−

Birds and mammals (presence of various signs of activity, droppings, etc.).

−−

Landscape setting:

−−

Context (category of landscape around the tree, e.g. arable field, heathland, parkland)

−−

Management (work done to tree or surroundings in the past two years, e.g. pollarding, weeding)

−−

Damage (categories of major damage, e.g. lightning, ploughing, inappropriate pruning)

−−

Degree to which the tree is shaded (category of intensity)

6.6  Grazing and browsing There are situations where more grazing (and browsing) in woodland would be desirable, for example in neglected wood-pastures, as well as problems caused by overgrazing of woodland (Mitchell and Kirby 1990; Kirby et al. 1994; Vera 2000; Fuller and Gill 2001). Grazing and browsing impacts, particularly on tree regeneration, have often been studied via exclosures (e.g. Linhart and Whelan 1980; Pigott 1983; Putman et al. 1989; Latham and Blackstock 1998; Morecroft et al. 2001; Stone 2004; Perrin et al. 2006). Other ways of assessing grazing pressures at wood and landscape scales are outlined in Armstrong et al. (2014) (http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/woodland-grazing-toolbox/monitoring), by Thompson et al. (2004), Cooke (2006) and Putman et al. (2011), and as part of the NFI at https://www. forestry.gov.uk/fr/infd-9m8f6p. In the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland, 33% of polygons were put into the high or very high impact categories (C and D), which would be likely to prevent successful tree and shrub regeneration of most species, most of the time (https://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/FCMS126.pdf/$FILE/FCMS126.pdf). Herbivore impact assessments are now a common survey activity in Scotland (e.g. MacKenzie and Clifford 2010).

6.7  Woodland archaeology and soil surface features Archaeological reports may provide important context for the historic landscapes in which woodland sits (Foard 2001). Within woods, Peterken (1993) and Rackham (2003) elegantly showed how a study of soil surface features, such as banks, ditches and charcoal hearths, contributes to an understanding of the current composition and structure of a wood. Barnes and Willliamson (2015) provide further details for Norfolk woods, while

Going beyond the walkabout: more detailed surveys  | 71

Box 6.3  Archaeological features (a) in and (b) of woods (a) An old moat, a pit that once housed a waterwheel, and the base of a World War II shelter.

72  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

(b) A charcoal hearth site, a medieval wood-bank, and the remains of a sawpit.

Going beyond the walkabout: more detailed surveys  | 73

74  |  Woodland Survey Handbook the Forestry Commission Scotland illustrates the sorts of features often found in upland woods and forests (http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/FCPG101.pdf). Other examples can be found in the reports of the Scottish Woodland History Group’s annual conferences (http://www.nwdg.org.uk/index.html). Bannister (1996) and Rotherham et al. (2011) describe field survey methods for looking at surface features and woodland archaeology. The increasing availability of lidar imagery has transformed our ability to detect features that may not be easy to spot  in the field because of the tree crop or understorey (Crow et al. 2007). For an example at Savernake Forest, see https://historicengland.org.uk/research/research-results/ recent-research-results/south-west/­savernake-forest-nmp/. Three classes of features may be distinguished, all of which may be of interest in their own right, but also as an aid to understanding the history and functioning of the woodland (Box 6.3). •

Natural surface features – These include screes and landslips, surface depressions, springs, loess, cover sands and sand lenses. The land surface is rarely smooth, even in the lowlands. Since many woods have not been ploughed, at least in recent years with modern machinery, they may be more likely to contain natural surface patterns that have been destroyed or damaged in the adjacent farmland.

•

Archaeological features surviving in the wood but not necessarily related to the wood or its management – These include the presence of former field systems and their boundaries, prehistoric camps and exclosures, burial mounds, old moats, and ridge-and-furrow patterns. These may cast light on whether the wood is ancient or not, and even if ancient (pre-AD 1600), whether there has been an earlier open phase. More recent features such as World War II bomb dumps, old buildings and their gardens, and small-scale mineral workings (levels, quarries, spoil heaps) help to explain local disturbances and species distributions.

•

Archaeological features linked to the wood or its management – These include woodbanks, charcoal hearths, sawpits, old drainage patterns, old roads, tracks and hollowways. These often have a direct link to an understanding of the current composition and structure of the woodland, and its past and present management.

6.8  Soils Soils underlie the woodland and much of the biological activity takes place within them; ancient woods may also be important for conserving relatively undisturbed soils (Ball and Stevens 1981; Wilson et al. 1990) compared to adjacent agricultural lands. However, this argument is somewhat weakened by studies showing that woodland cover has often been a lot more dynamic than previously assumed. Soil characteristics, particularly variations in soil wetness and soil acidity/nutrient richness, underlie many of the divisions in the various woodland classifications that have been developed over the years, including those in the NVC (see Section 6.2.2 and Appendix 3). An accessible guide to assessing soils is provided in Pyatt et al. (2001) (Table 6.5). National soil maps for use with landscape-scale assessments are available at http://www.ukso.org/maps.html.

Going beyond the walkabout: more detailed surveys  | 75 Table 6.5  Soil quality, soil types and humus forms.

From Pyatt et al. (2001), reproduced with permission from the Forestry Commission.

76  |  Woodland Survey Handbook During walkabout surveys, observations can be made on the broad nature of the mineral soil component, for example its texture (Landon 1988), the proportions of particles of different sizes (sand, silt and clay) that influence likely soil drainage, and nutrient status (although the latter may also be inferred from the vegetation). As a very first approximation, take a piece of soil, moisten it and rub it between your fingers: a high sand content will feel gritty. The soil does not stick together well and you cannot easily mould it into a ball between your hands. If it does stick together and you can then roll the ball out into a thin worm and bend the worm into circle, without breaking it, there is a lot of clay in the soil. If the soil does stick together, but will not form a worm, and feels soapy or slippery, the dominant particles are probably silts. Clay and silt soils are often described as ‘heavy’, and those with lots of sand as ‘light’; these terms derive from the effort needed to plough them. The broad soil type (brown earths, podsols, gleys) may be apparent, for example through looking at ditch profiles or the pit and mound associated with uprooted trees. Soil pH can be measured, although this can vary over quite short distances and with soil depth, so a number of samples may be needed. With peats the whole soil is organic, but more commonly the organic matter is concentrated in the upper layers of the soil. Some tree species have litter that is slow to break down (e.g. beech, many conifers) so that there is a build-up of a deep organic layer at the soil surface. Where the tree litter breaks down more quickly (e.g. ash, lime), most of the organic material may be quickly incorporated into the underlying mineral soil. There is an interaction with soil pH in that deep-burrowing earthworms are important in mixing the organic and mineral fractions, but they cannot tolerate very acid soils. Hence, the more acidic the soil, the more likely it is that surface organic layers will build up. Under very acidic conditions, the organic acids leached out of the surface layers leach iron compounds from the underlying mineral soil, leaving a bleached layer; the iron may be redeposited lower down as an impermeable iron pan. More detailed soil surveys may involve the digging of soil pits and detailed soil profile description, with multiple soil samples being taken for nutrient analysis.

6.9  Biomass and energy flows Biomass and energy-flow surveys have been little used in UK conservation practice to date, but their significance could increase, for example because of concerns about carbon sequestration in different systems (Fenn et al. 2010). Some of the data from structural studies (diameter and heights of trees) may be converted into approximate biomass values through the use of allometric equations such as presented by Bunce (1968) and those for ground flora by A. Bolte (Schulze et al. 2009).

CHAPTER 7

Surveys for species groups other than vascular plants Questions to be addressed: •

What can be said about groups other than vascular plants?

•

What techniques can be used to survey for them?

•

How do these species relate to different aspects of the woodland structure?

7.1  Mammals (based on input from Tony Mitchell-Jones) A wide range of mammals may use woodland at some time or other. Most mammals can colonise suitable new woodland more quickly than some other groups, so there is less significance to the distinction between ancient and recent sites. The importance of woodland as a habitat to a particular species is, however, affected by the availability of other habitats. Mammals are more influenced by the structure than the detailed botanical composition of the wood. Species such as hedgehogs and shrews tend to be more abundant in open woods with dense herbaceous layers, voles prefer dense field layers which help to shield them from predation, wood mice make more use of the shrub layer, while dormice are very strongly arboreal. Most species will not be visible on a walk through a wood, apart from squirrels, perhaps deer and the odd rabbit. Some, such as foxes, are so widespread that their presence can almost be assumed, although even common species should not be taken for granted: in 1988 the hedgehog was considered ‘ubiquitous’ but has declined considerably since then. Various bat species are particularly associated with holes in trees or cracks under bark (barbastelle, Brandt’s, Bechstein’s, Daubenton’s, Leisler’s, noctule and serotine bats). These microhabitats are well represented in veteran trees but may occur in much smaller and younger trees as well. Developments in bat-detector technology, which are still continuing, have greatly improved our knowledge of this group (www.bats.org.uk). It is now possible to identify how different groups of bats may be using different parts of a wood for roosting and feeding (Figure 7.1).

78  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Figure 7.1  Roost sites and flight lines for two groups of Daubenton’s bats in the north end of Wytham Woods (data and image © Danielle Linton). The circles indicate the number of individuals recorded per roost site by status: adult males = dark blue; adult females = dark pink; juvenile males = pale blue; juvenile females = pale pink.

The presence of deer will usually be obvious from tracks and signs of grazing and browsing (see also Section 6.6). Assessing deer numbers is more difficult, with different techniques often giving different results for the same woodland. Useful guides are available from the Deer Initiative (www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk) and from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-seamanagement/managing-wildlife/managing-deer/deer-management-general-guidance/ deer-counting). Often it is more important to understand the impact of deer (see Section 6.6) than the absolute numbers. Carnivores are difficult to survey at anything other than a qualitative level, and most work is based on indirect signs, ranging from badger setts to hair and droppings. The cryptic, often crepuscular or nocturnal, activity of mammals generally makes them a difficult group to work on, so there is a need to be very clear about the objectives of the survey and to minimise the data needed to meet these objectives. Surveys for signs of mammals are often easier than finding the mammals themselves and quantitative surveys are much more difficult than qualitative ones. Choosing the most cost-effective method can be complex (e.g. see Roberts 2011). Buesching et al. (2010) illustrate the different ways in which researchers have sought to understand the mammal populations of one particular site. Survey methods tend to be specific to particular groups: small mammal traps are effective (Gurnell and Flowerdew 2006) but do not work for deer, whereas thermal imaging is not likely to be appropriate for small mammals. Technological developments in bat detectors, radiotelemetry and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, the wide availability of camera traps, DNA identification from scats and other high-tech methods, have considerably improved the potential to assess the occurrence and populations of

Surveys for species groups other than vascular plants  | 79 mammals in woods. Bat and dormouse boxes have joined bird boxes as common additions to woods to facilitate the detection of species. It has become much easier, through the internet, to set up and coordinate volunteer recording networks for different species. Note that working with some species and some methods requires licences from the conservation agencies or the Home Office. Data on the distribution of mammals can be found on the National Biodiversity Network Atlas (https://nbnatlas.org/). Historical and spatial contextual data may be available from indirect sources such as game-bag records or hunting yearbooks, for example stoat and weasel trapping records (McDonald and Harris 1999); periodic sample surveys that record the presence/absence of a species, such as the surveys detailing the recovery of otters (Mason and Macdonald 2004); and volunteer recording projects such as the Great Nut Hunt for dormice (Bright et al. 1996) or the mammal monitoring incorporated into the Breeding Bird Surveys (https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/bbs/ latest-results/mammal-monitoring). Further examples can be found in Battersby (2005), which summarised the state of knowledge at that time. Other guidance on surveys can be found at https://www.cieem.net/mammals and http://www.mammal.org.uk/science-research/surveys/.

7.2  Woodland birds (based on input from Rob Fuller and Phil Grice) Broadleaved woodland supports more species of breeding birds than any other habitat in Britain, with many individual species occurring at high densities. Considering woodland of all types, Fuller (1995) listed 52 species which breed and feed within closed-canopy woodland or scrub in Britain, and a further 17 species that use open canopy or young woodland. An additional 18 species often nest in woodland but feed mainly in surrounding, more open habitats. Bird assemblages in British woodland tend to comprise fewer species than those in mainland Europe, and the habitats occupied by individual species may be different (Mikusiński et al. 2018); willow tit, for example, is more associated with conifers on the Continent. Many woodland species, such as wren, robin, blue tit, great tit and chaffinch, are also more widespread in Britain in other habitats such as farmland and gardens than in the rest of Europe. Birds that are more confined to woodland and/or scrub than other habitats include the woodpeckers, tree pipit, nightingale, redstart, garden warbler, wood warbler, chiffchaff, pied flycatcher, marsh tit, willow tit, nuthatch, treecreeper and hawfinch. The native pinewoods, while less rich in species than much broadleaved woodland, have their own distinctive suite of species including Scottish crossbill, crested tit and capercaillie. The character of bird assemblages tends to be more strongly influenced by the structure of the woodland than by the tree species present, with the growth stage of woodland having an overriding effect on the bird community. Being quite mobile and dispersive, birds tend to show little association with whether a site is ancient or not (assuming that the structure is suitable). Recent management can have a very strong influence on the relative abundance of species, as shown by the effects of coppicing (Figure 7.2).

80  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Figure 7.2  Abundance of five breeding bird species in relation to age of coppice growth (years after cutting) in Bradfield Woods, Suffolk, in 1987 (based on surveys described in Fuller and Rothery 2013). The data were gathered using territory mapping across 64 ha. Ten morning visits were made, mainly in April and May. Where a territory spanned more than one compartment, it was allocated proportionately according to the number of registrations in each.

Key habitat features that can influence the nature of the bird community include: •

Density of shrub/understorey layer – Many species forage or nest in the shrub layer, for example blackcap and garden warbler. A smaller number, for example pied flycatcher and wood warbler, prefer woods which largely lack vegetation below the canopy layers (usually due to grazing/browsing or to heavy shading).

•

Scrub and coppice – Several long-distance migrants, for example tree pipit and nightingale, prefer early successional stages such as recently cut or dense regrowth of coppice, although overstood coppice tends to be a poor habitat for birds.

•

Mature and veteran trees – These develop microhabitats rich in invertebrates and provide the potential for hole-nesting species (Summers 2007), while their size means that they can readily provide nest platforms for large species such as red kites.

The choice of method for counting woodland birds is determined by the aim and scale of the work undertaken (Bibby et al. 2000). Methods rarely provide absolutely accurate estimates of the densities of birds; rather, the results should be treated as relative estimates or indices of abundance. It is also generally easier to make comparisons of abundance within species than between species, because each species varies in its detectability. Other factors that may affect the efficiency of the counting process include weather, time of day, season of year and observer ability. These factors should be kept as constant as possible

Surveys for species groups other than vascular plants  | 81 between sites and between years if repeat surveys are planned. Species vary greatly in their seasonal detectability and behaviour so that bespoke methods are required for very detailed single-species surveys, for example for woodcock (Heward et al. 2015). Territory mapping is labour intensive, so is appropriate mainly for the detailed study of individual sites, for example studying the detailed distribution of birds in relation to habitat features within a given wood. In Bradfield Woods, Suffolk, this method was used as part of a study of nightingale nesting in relation to deer exclosures (Holt et al. 2010) and in studies of how coppicing affects the bird communities (Fuller and Rothery 2013) (Figure 7.2). Point counts are now more commonly used in surveys where the aim is to make comparisons of the relative abundance of bird species in a series of woods or study areas, or for comparisons over time (Hewson et al. 2007). A series of random or systematic points are chosen in each study area, at least 100 m apart to reduce the chance of counting the same birds at different recording stations. At each point, the observer records the birds seen or heard in a fixed period; these may be split into ‘near’, for example within 25 m of the recorder, and ‘far’ (more than 25 m from the recorder) records, or even recorded in multiple distance bands. At least two visits should be made, for example in mid-April to early May and again in mid-May to early June, to allow for seasonal variation in breeding activity and detectability. Habitat measurements, such as of the vegetation structure (see Sections 5.5 and 6.3), may be made at the same time. Spatial and temporal context can be found in the atlases of bird distribution (Balmer et al. 2013) (https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/birdatlas), with some woodland specialists in particular showing recent declines (https://www.bto.org/about-birds/ birdtrends/2014). The main programme for long-term monitoring of birds is the Breeding Bird Survey (https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/bbs), and a composite index of woodland bird population trends forms part of the Defra biodiversity indicators (http:// jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4235). There are periodic surveys for individual species, such as for nightingales (https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/nightingale-survey), woodcock (https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/woodcock-survey/results) and capercaillie (Ewing et al. 2012). Perhaps the most studied woodland bird populations, using a variety of different techniques, are blue and great tits in Wytham Woods, Oxfordshire (http:// wythamtits.com/#intro). Other guidance on bird survey methods can be found at https://www.cieem.net/birds and https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys.

7.3  Reptiles and amphibians Woodland is often not thought of as an important habitat for reptiles and amphibians in Britain (Ratcliffe 1977), but amphibians thrive in it where there are damp areas in the ground layer. This is especially true of newts, which are very much creatures of the litter layer much of the time, where they prey on small invertebrates, as do salamanders elsewhere in the world. The limiting factor for amphibians in woods is the need for ponds in which to breed. The most suitable ponds are those that are unshaded so that the water temperature is raised by the spring sunshine. Guidance on managing woodlands with great crested newts in England is given at https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/GUIDANCE_newt_finalv ersion05_04_16Versionfor2016CLEANFINAL.pdf/$file/GUIDANCE_newt_finalversion05 _04_16Versionfor2016CLEANFINAL.pdf (Box 7.1).

82  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Box 7.1  Sampling for great crested newts (the dog is optional) Sampling for great crested newts used to rely on direct observations or bottle trapping, but surveys based on environmental DNA (eDNA) have emerged as a potentially valuable approach for detecting the presence of this protected species. This could lend itself to citizen-science based monitoring programmes (Biggs et al. 2015).

Adders and slow worms are associated with woodland edge and open woodland habitats, often where bracken is prevalent (Phelps 2004; McInerny 2014). These areas should be exposed to the sun because reptiles must bask to raise their body temperature to become active. Plantations on former heathland in southern England may still contain populations of sand lizard and smooth snakes along rides or other open areas (Jofré et al. 2016). Management of open space is therefore a critical factor for their survival (https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/england-protectedspecies-snake.pdf/$FILE/englandprotectedspecies-snake.pdf). Further survey information for reptiles and amphibians can be found at https://www. cieem.net/amphibians and http://www.narrs.org.uk/. For some species a licence from the statutory conservation agency may be required.

7.4  Bryophytes Bryophytes can form loose carpets under the vascular plant ground flora, or they may dominate the ground cover, spilling also over rocks and logs, and up the trunks of trees as epiphytes. The main conservation interest tends to be in the Atlantic species assemblages that are particularly well developed in Britain and Ireland (Ratcliffe 1969). They can be very sensitive to management effects because of their need for high atmospheric humidity. Species may be lost from a site or found only in locations such as gorges and rock overhangs if the tree and shrub cover is cleared, even temporarily (Edwards 1986; Rothero 2005); they are also sensitive to air pollution (Mitchell et al. 2005). Some bryophytes feature as constant or differential species in vegetation classifications and surveyors should try to become familiar with at least the common and more obvious species (Table 7.1). Survey methods are broadly as for vascular plants, either listing species seen on a walk or through more intensive surveys of particular patches. Important niches include boulders, rock outcrops (especially if overhanging and damp), streamsides, springs and flushes. The British Bryological Society’s field guide (Atherton et al. 2010) includes a useful list of characteristic bryophytes of terrestrial habitats, including divisions by substrate and broad rock type. This is available under the Field Guide page, Habitats

Surveys for species groups other than vascular plants  | 83 and Index at http://www.britishbryologicalsociety.org.uk/. Recording cards are available from the British Bryological Society (http://www.britishbryologicalsociety.org.uk/). Distribution maps (Blockeel et al. 2014) and more recent records can be accessed through this link, via the National Biodiversity Network. Table 7.1  Bryophytes that may be useful in separating different vegetation types.

Mosses

Liverworts

Atrichum undulatum

Plagiothecium denticulatum

Bazzania trilobata

Brachythecium rutabulum

Plagiothecium undulatum

Calypogeia fissa

Ctenidium molluscum

Pleurozium schreberi

Conocephalum conicum

Dicranella heteromalla

Polytrichum commune

Diplophyllum albicans

Dicranum majus

Polytrichastrum formosum

Herbertus aduncus

Dicranum scoparium

Pseudosceleropodium purum

Lepidozia reptans

Eurhynchium striatum

Pseudotaxiphyllum elegans

Lophocolea bidentata

Fissidens taxifolius

Ptilium crista-castrensis

Lophocolea cuspidata

Hookeria lucens

Rhytidiadelphus loreus

Lophocolea reptans

Hypnum cupressiforme

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus

Mylia taylori

Hylocomium splendens

Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus

Pellia spp.

Kindbergia praelonga

Sphagnum spp.

Plagiochila asplenoides

Leucobryum glaucum

Thamnobryum alopecurum

Plagiochila spinulosa

Loeskeobryum brevirostre

Thuidium tamariscinum

Porella platyphylla

Mnium hornum

Scapania gracilis

Plagiomnium undulatum

7.5  Lichens (based on input from Ray Woods) The British lichen flora is considered to be of international importance (Rose 1993). Lichens occur in a range of different situations, but it is as epiphytes that they are most likely to be of interest in woodland and parkland situations (British Lichen Society 1982). Veteran trees can be particularly important for their epiphytic communities, and various indices of ecological continuity, based on species composition, have been suggested (Rose 1976; Coppins and Coppins 2002). Some species are poor colonists, while for others the specific habitats required may develop only on very old trees. Many lichens are sensitive to atmospheric pollutants (Nimis et al. 2002) and epiphytic assemblages tend now to be best developed in the west of Britain, where levels of air pollution are low and humidity is higher. Until recently, sulphur dioxide had greatly diminished the lichen mycota of the more industrialised areas (Larsen et al. 2007). Its elimination as a pollutant has allowed lichens to return to areas formerly described as ‘lichen deserts’. The oxides of nitrogen still pose a major threat by acidifying lichen substrates, notably in areas

84  |  Woodland Survey Handbook of high rainfall. In contrast, ammonia from intensive agricultural enterprises is increasing the pH of tree bark and stimulating the growth of nitrophilous lichens. Key indicators of potential interest for epiphytes include the following: •

Low levels of atmospheric pollutants – Sites sheltered in valleys may retain a good lichen flora even if levels of atmospheric pollutants in the general area are above the tolerance thresholds. Trees and shrubs with a relatively nutrient-rich bark (e.g. ash, elder, elm, field maple, hazel, willow, rowan) may allow epiphytes to survive the effects of acidic air pollution better than trees with more acidic bark (e.g. alder, birch, oak, pine).

•

High humidity – The richest epiphytic communities, particularly for those lichens with cyanobacteria as a photosynthetic partner, tend to be in areas of high humidity, such as ravines on the west coast, especially where the soils are somewhat calcareous or experience some base-rich flushing.

•

The presence of old/large trees, particularly those with well-lit trunks – Old trees (including old coppice stools) provide a range of niches not found on smaller and younger trees (see also Section 6.5.

•

Sites with an unbroken continuity of tree cover, especially where there are many veterans or those which are old for their species (some shrubs, such as elder, can have very rich lichen communities, although they may not be recognisably veteran) – Frequently, these are wood-pastures (old deer parks, former royal forests, old commons). Trees on crags in the west and north whose inaccessibility saved them from cutting can also be rich hosts, for example the Atlantic hazelwoods. Although hazel does not obviously form veteran trees in these situations, the frequent production of ‘sun-shoots’ means that, where browsing is low, there is a constant supply of stems of all ages, ensuring that a succession of lichen communities can be present on the same stool, which may itself be hundreds of years old (Coppins and Coppins 2012). Where the continuity of tree cover has been broken, rock outcrops may provide refugia, especially for foliose and fruticose species, allowing later recolonisation of the trees. Many crustose species are, however, endophloeodal – growing within the bark – and thus dependent on the continuity of trees.

Recording tends to be based on species lists for particular trees or sites. Information on recording and distribution of species can be found at http://www.britishlichensociety. org.uk/recording-mapping/bls-databases. See also https://www.cieem.net/flora. For a description of the major lichen-dominated communities recognised in Britain, see http:// wales-lichens.org.uk/content/lichen-communities.

7.6  Invertebrates (based on inputs from David Heaver, Simon Leather and Iain MacGowan) Woodland is the richest of terrestrial habitats for invertebrates, in terms of both species and diversity of communities (Elton 1966; Kirby 1992; Hambler et al. 2010). The trees themselves (particularly veteran trees; see Section 6.5) provide food for hundreds of species of insects.

Surveys for species groups other than vascular plants  | 85 The number of invertebrate species associated with each tree species varies greatly: see Kennedy and Southwood (1984) for examples of herbivorous species and Rotheray et al. (2001) for saproxylic Diptera. However, the assumption that native trees are necessarily ‘rich’ and introductions ‘poor’ for invertebrates has proved to be too simplistic. It depends on whether one is considering generalists or specialists, dead wood or canopy feeders, just the presence of a species or their biomass. What is important is the nature of the resources that the tree provides for invertebrates. Native ash came out as relatively poor in specialist species in the early papers, but it has a distinct fauna potentially at risk from the spread of ash dieback (Mitchell et al. 2014a,b). Long-established introductions such as sycamore tend to have a richer associated fauna than more recently arrived trees, but some species transferred quickly from oak and beech to southern beech Nothofagus spp. (Welch and Greatorex-Davies 1993; Alexander et al. 2006). Many large trees are non-natives, such as sycamore, sweet chestnut (and beech in northern areas), but because of the sheer number and variety of microhabitats that they support, can be of considerable importance. Horse chestnut produces large amounts of wet rot, which is excellent for saproxylic flies: the formerly ‘extinct’ hoverfly Myolepta potens was rediscovered at Moccas Park National Nature Reserve, Herefordshire, in horse chestnut (David Heaver, personal communication). As important as the tree species composition is the woodland structure (see also Sections 5.5 and 6.3). The structure determines the range of physical conditions and microhabitats found that provide different types of food, shelter and protection. Distinctive elements in woodland structure for invertebrates include the tree-leaf litter, dead and decaying trees, standing or fallen, and dead branches in the canopy or on the ground. All provide breeding grounds for a wide range of insects directly feeding on the decay, along with their associated predators and parasites. Those associated with bark and sapwood decay form a different assemblage from those found in heartwood. Fungal fruiting bodies provide another important microhabitat for a specialised community. Suntraps in the form of flowery woodland glades are used as feeding and sunning places for adult insects which emerge from these different woodland habitats, as well as supporting their own suite of insects. Wet areas (marshes, streams and pools) add a further set of conditions and species. The different stages in the invertebrate life cycle may have very different requirements (e.g. wet, shaded logs for larvae, and sunny, open rides for adults), so mosaics of different structures and microhabitats are likely to have rich invertebrate assemblages. The methods used to survey for invertebrates depend on the group, but also on where in the wood they occur (Leather 2005; Drake et al. 2007; Southwood and Henderson 2009) (https://www.cieem.net/invertebrates-terrestrial- and http://www. pro-natura.net/publikat-filer/TheroleoftreesoutsidewoodlandsFinalReportMarch2015. pdf). Most methods require more than one visit to the site, which may need to be at different times of the year, for example in spring to catch species visiting hawthorn, later when the bramble is in flower, with a third visit in autumn to pick up species associated with fungal fruiting bodies. All methods have limitations and biases in terms of which species are caught and whether the catches are representative of the populations as a whole. Major woodland invertebrate surveys generally use more than one method (e.g. Humphrey et al. 2003; O’Halloran et al. 2011). Some examples of the methods and their uses are given below (Box 7.2). Pitfall traps are one of the commonest methods used to sample invertebrates, but subject to many pitfalls (the old jokes are the best!), primarily that they only catch surface-

86  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Box 7.2  Some ways of catching invertebrates Malaise trap; yellow water-trap; pheromone trap; direct pursuit with machete and cigarette.

Surveys for species groups other than vascular plants  | 87

88  |  Woodland Survey Handbook moving invertebrates that happen to fall in (Woodcock 2005). They are good for ground beetles and invertebrates in the litter but will not catch actively flying species. Tullgren funnels may be used for extracting invertebrates from litter and soil; a sample is placed in an open tube with a heat source such as a bulb at one end; invertebrates move down the tube and drop out of the bottom to be collected (Crossley and Blair 1991). Direct sweeping is widely used for low vegetation, while the lower branches of trees and shrubs may be investigated by beating, in which a sheet is held beneath the branch and beaten, and invertebrates drop on to the sheet (Woodcock et al. 2003). D-vac is the equivalent of a vacuum cleaner, used to suck invertebrates from a fixed area (Southwood et al. 1979). There can be physical difficulties in using these methods consistently in dense woodland vegetation. Malaise traps are tent-like structures for catching flying insects. There are large openings at each side into which insects fly; once in the trap they are funnelled upwards towards the light into a cylinder containing a killing agent (Fraser et al. 2007). The trap is usually most efficient if set in a relatively open area, or where there is a natural gap in the vegetation structure into which flying insects are concentrated. The traps can be placed at different heights above the ground. Malaise traps can be very efficient, with potentially over 1,000 insects a day caught in a well-placed trap. However, dealing with the large volume of specimens captured then becomes an issue. Window traps are another form of passive sampling, consisting of transparent panes that are suspended from trees or bushes; insects fly into them and drop into a collecting tray below (Burns et al. 2014). Vane traps work on a similar principle. Both are discussed at http://www. pro-natura.net/publikat-filer/TheroleoftreesoutsidewoodlandsFinalReportMarch2015. pdf. An alternative is to actively attract insects to a trap, as for example with moth traps (Fry and Waring 2001), which use light to bring in a wide range of species (FuentesMontemayor et al. 2012). A particular type, the Rothamsted trap, has been used widely over many years to look at changes in populations over time (http://www.mothscount. org/text/34/rothamsted_insect_survey.html). Some species may also be looked for using pheromone traps; this technique is usually used for pests such as the oak processionary moth (Williams et al. 2013) but is increasingly being employed as a tool to determine the presence and population sizes of some rarer insects. Specific surrogate habitat measures may indicate the likely occurrence of some species; for example, in France, the probability of occurrence of the violet click beetle Limoniscus violaceus increased with increased tree circumference at 30  cm above ground and with increased hollow decay stage. The occurrence of the beetle is relatively high in trees that have a circumference greater than 360  cm, but unlikely for circumferences lower than 235 cm (Gouix et al. 2015). There has also been a growth of citizen-science type surveys; for examples see https:// www.buglife.org.uk/activities-for-you/wildlife-surveys. Butterflies are among the most studied groups of invertebrates, and population trends based on butterfly transect counts (Pollard and Yates 1993) underpin the data used as one of the Defra diversity indices for the wider countryside (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4236) and as one of SNH’s National Indicators (https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/201706/B424909.pdf). Information on distributions is well documented (e.g. https://butterflyconservation.org/files/soukb-2015.pdf). This has led to butterflies often being used as a surrogate indicator for the availability and quality of open space in woodland, such as

Surveys for species groups other than vascular plants  | 89 rides and glades (Warren and Fuller 1993). Transect counting has also been used in bee surveys (Heard et al. 2007), along with putting up ‘bee houses’, in the same way that nest boxes are used for monitoring birds and bats. Sampling for the larvae of saproxylic species may often require removal of wood mould from hollow trees, removal of bark, breaking up dead wood or some other form of destructive sampling. However, there are alternatives, such as the use of emergence traps over dead wood or over the exit to tree cavities. There are significant benefits in such direct sampling as it clearly establishes the link between a given insect and its associated tree species or microhabitat. The adults of saproxylic species may be detectable in window trap or pitfall samples (Ranius and Jansson 2002) or malaise traps. The adults can also often be detected on the flowers of woodland or woodland edge shrubs, such as hawthorn and rowan, which they visit for nectar. Mark–recapture techniques may be used, for example to establish the dispersion range of the aspen hoverfly in Scotland (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841014-9627-7) (Rotheray et al. 2014). Telemetry has been used on some beetle species on the Continent (Ranius 2006). A major problem with sampling canopy invertebrates is reaching them; this may sometimes be possible using specialist climbing gear, walkways or high-lift platforms. Alternatively, the invertebrates can be brought down to ground level by fogging with knockdown insecticides (Ozanne 1999; 2005; Jukes and Peace 2003; Pedley et al. 2014). This requires specialist equipment and training. The collection of the samples may be relatively quick and simple, but considerably more time and expertise are usually needed in the subsequent identification of species. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods should produce a step change in this respect (Handley 2015; Deiner et al. 2017). Interpreting what a list of species means may also require further work. Longstanding indices for saproxylic species can be used to suggest the conservation value of a site (Fowles et al. 1999). More recently, the Invertebrate Survey Information System (ISIS) was developed (Webb and Lott 2006). This used a database summarising the relationships between species of invertebrate and their habitat type to identify the key species and their requirements from a survey list (Table 7.2). The approach has been further developed by Natural England and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology as ‘Pantheon’, to assist invertebrate nature conservation in England (Heaver et al. 2017). Users can import lists of invertebrates into the system, which then Table 7.2  Species assemblage types represented in a list of insects from a section of Bredon Hill, Worcestershire, analysed using the Invertebrate Survey Information System (ISIS).

Species assemblages associated with A213 Fungal fruiting bodies

No. of species in sample

% of national species pool associated with assemblage type

8

9

23

5

A211 Heartwood decay

8

5

F001 Scrub edge

2

1

F002 Rich flower resource

1

0

A212 Bark and sapwood decay

90  |  Woodland Survey Handbook analyses the species and attaches the associated habitats and resources and conservation status for each species (http://www.brc.ac.uk/pantheon/). It will provide a breakdown of all the resources that the sample aligns with, and associated species, and will thus help to link the catch with their foodplants.

7.7  Fungi Fungi have been poorly covered in conservation studies in the past compared to other groups and were not considered at all in the 1988 handbook. There is no disputing their importance in the functioning of woodland systems; most woodland plants are likely to have mycorrhizal associates (Harley and Harley 1987). Extensive lists have been published for some sites and woodland types, as well as some comparative studies, for example for Monks Wood, Cambridgeshire (Steele and Welch 1973), for pinewoods (Newton et al. 2002) and for some plantation types (Ferris et al. 2000). However, major uncertainties exist around how well the fungi represented in above-ground fruiting bodies reflect the species that may be below ground, and how the list is affected by differences in survey effort or variations between years. This has limited the use of such lists in the comparative evaluation of sites or woodland management advice. Progress has been made for grassland waxcap assemblages (Griffith et al. 2004) and with broader scale conservation strategies for fungi (Dahlberg et al. 2010). The development of eDNA extraction and analysis techniques is making it easier to understand the distribution of species across sites, and to adopt standardised techniques for comparing sites (Buée et al. 2009). Some evidence from tooth fungi suggests that there may be little relationship between the abundance of mycelium and the presence of fruiting bodies, and that some species may be more common than suggested by the presence of fruiting bodies alone (Van der Linde et al. 2009), although a closer correlation has been found for other species (Liu et al. 2016). The potential for more systematic consideration of fungi in conservation surveys is therefore likely to change rapidly in the next few years.

CHAPTER 8

Long-term surveillance to detect change Question to be addressed: •

What evidence is there on recent past or likely future changes in woodland patterns in the landscape, or the state of a particular wood or stand?

8.1  Introduction Just as survey methods have changed since the 1988 volume (Kirby 1988), so have many of the woods, the landscapes in which they sit and the species that they contain (Hopkins and Kirby 2007). There have been ongoing losses of woodland and trees to development (https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/in-yourcommunity/), increased threats from deer (Fuller and Gill 2001) and tree diseases such as ash dieback (Mitchell et al. 2014a; 2014b), and no sustained upturn in the index of specialist breeding birds (Defra 2017). On the other hand, conifer plantations have been thinned out of many ancient woods at a scale that was unthinkable in the 1980s, to restore much of the flora (Kirby and Thomas 2017); new woods and new woodland landscapes have been created at Carrifran in the Scottish Borders (Ashmole and Ashmole 2009; Savory 2016) and the National Forest in the English Midlands (http://www.nationalforest.org/); the lady’s slipper orchid has been reintroduced at Gait Barrows National Nature Reserve in Lancashire; beavers splash again in rivers in England and Scotland. Ancient woods and veteran trees are much more appreciated by the public than they were. We need to be able to capture both the losses and failures as evidence for the need to change policies and practices, and the successes, so that conservation supporters among the public and politicians do not lose heart. The terms long-term surveillance and monitoring are both used for the detection and measurement of change in woodland (or other habitats and species) through some sort of repeat survey. They are often used interchangeably, but more specifically ‘surveillance’ refers to the simple observation of change, whereas ‘monitoring’ often implies the assessment of change in comparison to a target or an expectation. If the change exceeds the acceptable limits then some sort of action may be triggered, such as altering the management (Hurford and Schneider 2006).

92  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Surveillance and monitoring may be at the landscape, site or stand scale, and potentially any set of observations may act as the baseline. These may include casual comments in diaries about the abundance or scarcity of a species (Kirby 2016a) (see Box 2.1), old photographs (Proctor et al. 1980), maps and simple survey records (Woodruffe-Peacock 1918; Harmer et al. 2001). A canopy photograph on the front cover of the book by Elton (1966) and a diagram of the positions of the mature trees were used to look at changes in a stand at Wytham Woods (Mihók et al. 2009). Possible changes over time do, however, need to be judged against the variation and errors inherent in the baseline survey.

8.2  Landscape-scale change At various times and in various places, implicit or explicit targets or aspirations have been promoted by different government and non-government organisations; for example, ‘to see woodland cover expanded from 10% to 15% of England’s land area by 2060’ (Independent Panel on Forestry 2012), to work towards ‘…  no further loss of ancient woodland’ (https://www.woodlandtrust.org. uk/about-us/woodland-protection/) and to restore open bogs that were afforested  in Caithness (https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/conservation/projects/ from-conifer-plantation-to-blanket-bog-peatland-restoration-in-the-flow-country/). Methods to assess changes in land use and land cover that may be used to determine whether these sorts of targets are met are discussed primarily in Chapter 3. Issues common to many of these studies are how to allow for differences in the survey categories, minimum parcel sizes and survey intensities (Brandt et al. 2002). Cherrill and McClean (1995; 1999) discuss possible issues in using habitat maps to detect landscape change. Even relatively simple questions (e.g. How did the area of broadleaved woodland change through the twentieth century?) may not be as straightforward to answer as they appear because of the different methods used in the various censuses and inventories of British woodland since 1924 (https://www.forestry. gov.uk/fr/beeh-a3gf9u#previousandrelatedsurveys). Since 1992, direct observations of changes in species and sites have been made across a network of sites through the Environmental Change Network (http://www. ecn.ac.uk/), with respect to climate change. Two of the eleven terrestrial sites, Wytham Woods and Alice Holt Forest, are primarily woodland areas, but smaller areas of woodland also occur at Rothamsted and the Cairngorms. This approach has been used as a model for a programme of environmental monitoring on National Nature Reserves (https://defradigital.blog.gov.uk/2016/05/10/natural-englands-long-term-monitoringnetwork-data/) (Natural England 2012) and more generally (http://www.ecn.ac.uk/ what-we-do/science/projects/ecbn). Longer term vegetation change across landscapes may be investigated through comparisons with old botanical surveys, for example, in Scotland, surveys of grassland from the early 1970s have been revisited (Mitchell et al. 2017) and there is the potential for similar results to come from the woodland plots that also formed part of the original surveys; in Dorset, there have been repeats of surveys of woodland from the 1930s (Keith et al. 2009). Both noted a tendency towards increased eutrophication of the flora. Change in the British flora generally is described by Braithwaite et al. (2006) and there is now a national plant monitoring scheme (http://www.npms.org.uk/). Changes

Long-term surveillance to detect change  | 93 in other species groups may be followed through the recording schemes and atlases noted in Chapter 7.

8.3  Condition monitoring on designated sites The concept of condition monitoring for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) developed in the 1990s. It arose from concerns among the Wildlife Trusts (Rowell 1991), at the National Audit Office (National Audit Office 1994) and from within the government and conservation agencies (Rowell 1993; JNCC 1998) that there was not a consistent process by which the management of SSSIs was judged to determine whether the management was effective and hence justified the resources allocated to it. The challenge was to develop a protocol that would be simple and cheap enough to be regularly repeated, and that would allow the state of individual sites, and of the SSSI system as a whole, to be assessed (Table 8.1). It was intended as a monitoring system (not just surveillance) in that if habitats or species were judged unfavourable in terms of desired states or targets then some sort of action would be triggered. This could, in the first instance, be a requirement for further research or surveys, or a change to existing management to address the problem, or potentially in extremis even denotification of the site if the interest feature had been irretrievably damaged or destroyed.

Table 8.1  Components of common standards for monitoring designated sites (JNCC 1998; Williams 2006). • Interest features; that is, the features for which the site has been notified, are clearly identified. • Conservation objectives are set for interest features to define what constitutes favourable conditions for that feature, by describing broad targets which should be met if the feature is to be judged favourable. • The condition of site features is assessed as: –– Favourable (favourable, but declining is also recognised in Scotland) –– Unfavourable – recovering –– Unfavourable – no change –– Unfavourable – declining –– Partially destroyed –– Destroyed. • Activities and management measures are identified that affect the condition of the feature on a site. • Interest features for all statutory sites are monitored regularly; the intention was that this would be at least once within any six-year period, but even this has proved difficult to maintain. • Information on the SSSI/ASSI series will be presented at a GB/UK level by the JNCC. JNCC: Joint Nature Conservation Committee; SSSI: Site of Special Scientific Interest; ASSI: Area of Special Scientific Interest.

94  |  Woodland Survey Handbook The woodland approach (Kirby et al. 2002) was developed around assessing five broad attributes for a site: •

Extent – includes the extent and, where appropriate, distribution of the woodland features across the site. Internal variations are considered under other attributes.

•

Structure and natural processes – includes the balance between canopy and shrub layers, the importance of old trees versus open space on a site, the level of dead wood present, and the extent to which we wish the structure to be determined by natural processes rather than defined by a management regime.

•

Regeneration potential – includes the level and distribution of saplings and young trees we expect to see, extent of regrowth from coppice or pollarding, and the possible limits on planting. Potential was stressed since there are circumstances where we would not expect to see any actual regeneration, for example because the wood consists of a young, dense canopy layer.

•

Composition (trees and shrubs) – includes the level of native trees and shrubs we expect to see overall, any minimum requirements to maintain particular species, and (in most cases) a target to alert us to rapid declines in native trees and shrubs, for example as a consequence of a new disease coming in.

•

Quality indicators – includes (usually) the broad ground flora composition (as indicated by National Vegetation Classification type or typical common species), but also no more than four other things that are particularly important about the wood, which contributed towards its selection as an SSSI or Area of Special Scientific Interest and have not have been covered adequately by the previous attributes. Examples are the occurrence of particular rare species, a series of rich flushes and a good transition zone to another habitat.

For each attribute, at least one target is set that reflects the interest of the site and whether it is in good condition. Targets have to be those that can be easily and quickly assessed on a walk around the site: the number of sites and features is such that more detailed recording would simply not be practical often enough to be relevant to site management. At the end of the walk, the targets are assessed and decisions reached on what action, if any, is necessary. This reflects the idea that the monitoring was, in the first instance, intended as a way of assessing whether there was a need to improve the treatment of that particular site. The results are then fed into countrywide programmes to improve woodland management and to justify action to deal with widespread problems such as overgrazing. The system certainly has its flaws but has resulted in greater focus on what is important about any particular site and the SSSI series as a whole, and what is needed to improve the management of a site (Williams 2006; Kirby et al. 2010). The approach was originally developed specifically for the SSSI series, but some work has been done on similar type assessments for the woodland resource more generally. This has been carried out through specific condition assessment surveys (Lush et al. 2012) for non-SSSI woodland and has been adopted as part of the grant assessment processes by the Forestry Commission in England (https://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-hs2). Condition assessment formed part of the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (http:// scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/strategy-policy-guidance/native-woodland-survey-

Long-term surveillance to detect change  | 95 of-scotland-nwss) and through post hoc interpretation of data collected in other surveys such as the ‘Bunce’ woodland surveys (Kirby et al. 2005). There has also been some discussion about using data from the National Forest Inventory sample squares as a basis for assessing the condition of the whole forest estate. The results from conservation condition assessments have fed into the Favourable Conservation Status reports that are required by the European Commission under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. The reports for the types and species listed under Annexes I and II of the Directive are available at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4060.

8.4  Use of permanent plots and transects to assess change in woodland stand structure and composition Permanent plot studies can be invaluable in allowing direct observation of long-term changes, and their causes and consequences (Bakker et al. 1996; Barker-Plotkin and Foster 2006; Perrin et al. 2006). They make it easier to identify real change over time because exactly the same point is surveyed using the same methods, thus removing some of the potential variation seen in surveys where different plot locations are used on each recording. Their use is particularly relevant to woodland ecology and management because of the length of a tree’s life cycle. ‘Given the unique nature of permanent plots, the involved effort, and results, permanent plots are more than a method of science; they may be viewed as a cultural phenomenon. Permanent plots deserve to be treasured as living national monuments’ (Zeide 2001). In Britain, permanent transects and plots to study woodland stand structure have been established and rerecorded primarily in stands left to minimum intervention, including in areas devastated by the 1987 Great Storm (Peterken and Jones 1987; 1989; Peterken and Stace 1987; Backmeroff and Peterken 1988; Peterken and Backmeroff 1988; Whitbread 1991; Kirby and Buckley 1994; Mountford and Peterken 1998; 2000; 2003; Mountford et al. 1998; Butt et al. 2009). In most of these studies, the location and size of every individual stem have been plotted, such that patterns of recruitment and mortality, dieback and growth can be followed. The site most comprehensively documented in this respect is Lady Park Wood in the Wye Valley (Peterken and Mountford 2017). Where there are insufficient resources to plot and measure all individual stems, useful insights can come from less comprehensive repeat measurements (stem density, mean stem size, largest diameter tree, percentage canopy cover, etc.) across a series of permanent plots (e.g. Tittensor 2002; Kirby et al. 2014; 2016). Permanent plot studies have also been used to look at changes in the ground flora in both new and long-established woods (Kirby and Thomas 2000a; 2000b; Buckley et al. 2017; Francis and Morton 2001). Despite their advantages, there can be drawbacks to using permanently marked plots or transects: •

The distribution and extent of the transects at Lady Park Wood and of the permanent plot system at Wytham Woods are such that they are reasonably representative of the sites as a whole. At most other sites, only one or two transects or a handful of permanent plots have usually been established and these may have been placed in specific areas to address particular questions. At Langley Wood, Wiltshire (219 ha), the two permanent transects recorded were deliberately positioned to cross particularly

96  |  Woodland Survey Handbook varied parts of the site, under minimum intervention (Mountford et al. 1998); plots established in storm-damaged areas were not always matched by comparable plots in undamaged woodland. The subsequent changes recorded are certainly of interest, but not necessarily typical of what has happened elsewhere on the sites. •

There is a potential risk in managed woodland that the area around the permanent plot/transect will be treated more carefully than the rest of the managed area, again reducing its value as representative of the whole. The authors are not aware of any case where such special treatment has actually happened and have more often come across the situation where marker posts have been knocked over or buried under brash heaps during thinning operations.

•

The transects or plots do need to be relocatable or the extra effort that has gone into making them permanent will be wasted. Relocation has generally relied on permanent markers on or in the ground. Additional time may be needed to find the precise positions compared to recording temporary plot systems. Global Positioning System (GPS) can make reaching the general location easier and quicker, but, even so, markers may be lost or become inaccessible. Buried metal markers that should be traceable using a metal detector may prove troublesome if they are in the middle of a two-metre-high bramble patch! Plots at New Biggins Wood, Kent, and the stormdamage transects at Scords Wood, also in Kent, have similarly been unrecordable at times, just because of the density of the vegetation.

8.4.1  Semi-permanent plots Where the plot positions were not precisely marked but are known to within, say, 20–30 m, change can also be assessed by comparing results from repeated sets of plots that are taken as close as possible to the same place. These are sometimes described as ‘semi-permanent’ plots and studies based on these have proliferated in recent years (Verheyen et al. 2012). In Britain, the biggest example of such a study is the ‘Bunce’ study (Kirby et al. 2005). Commonly used GPS in woodland tends to be accurate to a few metres, so that relocations based solely on such readings would generally fall within this description.

8.4.2  Other types of permanent/semi-permanent record The emphasis above is on repeated records of data, but repeat photographs of the same area can be informative. Photographs may be taken from formally fixed positions, or the original views may be relocated by lining up distinctive trees or other features.

8.4.3  Making ‘permanent plot studies’ permanent in practice More ‘long-term’ studies are set up than are ever rerecorded, and the problems identified by Dawkins and Field (1978) and Peterken and Backmeroff (1988) remain. A study can only be repeated if the site is still there, the records and methodology (metadata) have survived, and the knowledge of both exists in people and institutions. Long-term studies are vulnerable to what Colyear Dawkins called the ‘bus’ factor: if their instigator or current champion goes under a bus, knowledge of the project and possibly the data themselves may be lost. Less dramatically, the same outcome may result

Long-term surveillance to detect change  | 97 if the principal champion changes jobs, retires, moves away or just loses interest in the subject; or if the parent institution is abolished or reorganised, or shifts its focus. The Lady Park Wood studies are exceptional in having survived several such transitions (Peterken and Mountford 2017). Progress has been made on some fronts: repositories for raw data exist and academic journals often now require that such source material is deposited in such places. The internet makes it easier to track these down. However, this still relies on the willingness and capacity of researchers to deposit their data and the accompanying metadata. Finding the resources to maintain long-term studies remains difficult. Repeat surveys often do not rate very highly with research funding bodies and institutional hierarchies. The data from any one rerecording may not show anything novel and, almost by definition, the work does not involve new techniques.

CHAPTER 9

Conclusion We reiterate the point made at the start: there is not one approach to surveying woodland for conservation purposes, but many. As Rudyard Kipling wrote: There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays; And every single one of them is right! (From ‘In the Neolithic Age’, first published in 1892) We hope, however, that the examples given will help you to find the ones most useful for you.

APPENDIX 1

Example of a completed walkabout record card

100  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

Example of a completed walkabout record card  | 101

102  |  Woodland Survey Handbook

APPENDIX 2

Stand Group key Peterken (1981; 1993) describes the development of Stand Groups as a way of classifying woodland stands according to their semi-natural tree and shrub composition. Assessments are made on areas of reasonably homogeneous composition, 30×30 m being the smallest unit that can be considered. In the key, ‘present’ means that the species occurs as an adult or maturing tree, shrub or coppice, that is not obviously planted or likely to be descended from recently introduced stock. Thus, species occurring only as seedlings or saplings do not count. Species also only count within their presumed native range, thus excluding pine in England and beech in Scotland. Each of the Stand Groups is then further subdivided using additional woody species or soil characteristics to give a total of 39 Stand Types.

Key question

Go to

1

One or more following genera present: Alnus, Fagus, Carpinus, Ulmus, Pinus

2

1a

All the above genera absent

4

2

Ulmus glabra present but not U. carpinifolia, U. procera, nor Alnus, Fagus, Carpinus, Pinus

Group 1

2a

Not as above

3

3a

Alnus present

Group 7

3b

Fagus present

Group 8

3c

Carpinus present

Group 9

3d

Ulmus carpinifolius/U. procera present

Group 10

3e

Pinus present

Group 11

3f

Two or more of the above genera present

Intermediate

4

Tilia cordata/platyphyllos present

5

4a

Tilia absent

6

5

Fraxinus present

Group 4

5a

Fraxinus absent

Group 5

6

Acer campestre present

Group 2

6a

Acer campestre absent

7

7

Fraxinus present

Group 3

7a

Fraxinus absent

8

8

Quercus present

Group 6

8a

Quercus absent, Betula present

Group 12

8b

Betula absent

Not classifiable

APPENDIX 3

National Vegetation Classification: English key This is a simplified guide to the main NVC communities likely to be encountered in ancient and semi-natural woods. W20 Montane willow scrub, W23 Gorse scrub, W24 Bramble underscrub and W25 Bracken underscrub have not been included. By itself it can never be 100% accurate and identifications should be checked against the fuller descriptions and species tables (Rodwell 1991). If these do not fit with the conclusion from the key, backtrack through the key to see where you may have gone wrong. The notes accompanying some divisions may help. At each stage (1–10), make a choice between various alternatives. Follow the appropriate route until you reach a community endpoint (in bold). These communities can be further divided into subcommunities, but this is not done here. You must consider both the trees and shrubs and the ground flora: sometimes one layer, sometimes the other will be more helpful. Almost every stand you look at in lowland England contains oak and bramble, so they are only helpful in describing a type if other more demanding or more restricted species are absent. Hence, in the key the more distinctive types tend to be picked out first. 1

Separating out the scrub types from the main woodland communities

1a

Stand dominated by HAWTHORN often (but not necessarily) with BRAMBLE, some BLACKTHORN and DOG ROSE. Saplings and young trees of canopy-forming species absent or very rare. IVY is usually present among the ground flora sometimes with NETTLE and CLEAVERS.

W21

W21 HAWTHORN–IVY scrub 1b

Stand dominated by BLACKTHORN, often with very little ground flora at all below, but BRAMBLE, NETTLES and CLEAVERS can be common. Saplings and young trees of canopy-forming species absent or rare.

W22

W22 BLACKTHORN–BRAMBLE scrub 1c

Stand dominated by JUNIPER with little or no overstorey on neutral–acid soils (i.e. not chalk juniper scrub). Ground flora usually includes BENT GRASSES, WOOD SORREL, WOOD-RUSH, TORMENTIL and HARD FERN. Mainly northern, on moorland fringes.

W19

W19 JUNIPER–WOOD SORREL scrub 1d

Other trees and shrubs present although if the stand has been recently felled they may not be very abundant at present. Include WILLOW, HOLLY, BIRCH and HAZEL stands here as well as those with larger tree species.

Go to 2

National Vegetation Classification: English key  | 105 2

Separating the wet from drier woodland communities BIRCH stands on dry sites such as the regrowth following felling of oak, or birch invasion of heathland should follow the ‘dry’ route (2c below). GOAT WILLOW and COMMON SALLOW may also sometimes occur as patches on heavy clays in ash or oak woods. Usually these other species will be in the vicinity and again follow the ‘dry’ route.

2a

Woodland mainly COMMON SALLOW or BIRCH (usually DOWNY BIRCH) or mixtures of these, usually on wet or peaty soils. Other trees and shrubs rare or absent.

Go to 3

2b

Woodland with ALDER and tall willows (such as CRACK WILLOW) common or OSIER BEDS; usually on wet soils but includes fairly dry alder stands on the fringes of wetland where it grades into drier ground.

Go to 4

2c

ALDER, SALLOWS and WILLOWS absent or present only as scattered individuals within woodland composed of other tree species (BEECH, YEW, OAK, ASH, etc.); free-draining to poorly drained soils, but if the latter then usually mineral soils, e.g. heavy clays, rather than organic ones.

Go to 5

3

Dividing up SALLOW–BIRCH wet woodland

3a

COMMON SALLOW, BAY WILLOW mixtures with some DOWNY BIRCH; swampy field layer with BOTTLE SEDGE, BOGBEAN, WATER HORSETAIL, LADY’S SMOCK, MARSH BEDSTRAW, MARSH MARIGOLD, ANGELICA, MARSH VALERIAN, WATER AVENS, MARSH HAWK’S BEARD. Extensive moss in most stands. Wet, poor-fen counterpart of W5 (see later). Mainly in northern England and Wales. On moderately nutrient-poor mires.

W3

W3 BAY WILLOW–BOTTLE SEDGE woodland 3b

COMMON SALLOW (or EARED SALLOW in the north) usually with some DOWNY BIRCH. WATERMINT and MARSH BEDSTRAW are typical ground flora species, sometimes with a wide range of other herbs, sometimes more grassy, sometimes much bare ground or just a moss-mat (not SPHAGNUM). Usually found on wet mineral soils on the margins of standing or slow-moving water and in moist hollows, mainly in the lowlands. Often a narrow fringe around ponds, lakes, dune slacks, etc. Canopy structure often irregular, with bushes of variable height.

W1 SALLOW–MARSH BEDSTRAW woodland

W1

106  |  Woodland Survey Handbook 3c

Usually both DOWNY BIRCH and COMMON SALLOW (or EARED SALLOW in the north) common in the tree/shrub layer. COMMON REED frequent and often abundant in the field layer, but the following species are usually absent or rare: TUSSOCK SEDGE, PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE, YELLOW LOOSESTRIFE. Tall sedges (LESSER POND SEDGE) – sometimes replace REED as the dominant ground flora species. There are two subcommunities. In one with a wide range of tall herbs and sedges COMMON ALDER may occur (cf. W5, see later). In the other on more acid peats SPHAGNUM mosses are common, BIRCH more abundant and SALLOWS less frequent. The presence of REED and absence of PURPLE MOOR-GRASS should help to separate this subcommunity from W4 (see later).

W2

W2 SALLOW–BIRCH–REED woodland 3d

DOWNY BIRCH abundant. COMMON SALLOW occasional. PURPLE MOOR-GRASS usually abundant. Sphagnum mosses usually abundant. Acid conditions around nutrient-poor mires or raised bogs and in peaty hollows within woods. Although commoner in the north and west it does also occur quite frequently in the south-east and East Anglia and anywhere where there is some peat formation. Three subcommunities cover the variation from drier to wetter stands. The driest stands may include some SILVER BIRCH, ROWAN and OAK, over a field layer with BRAMBLE, BROAD BUCKLER-FERN and HONEYSUCKLE where Sphagnum species are rare. These are transitional to ‘dry’ ground communities. The wettest stands have a field layer typical of wet heath or mire with dominant Sphagnum species. Intermediate stands have a grassy field layer with tussocks of rushes and sedges. This community typically lacks the tall herbs found in fens.

W4 DOWNY BIRCH–PURPLE MOOR-GRASS woodland 4

Dividing up the ALDER and tall WILLOW stands Alder, particularly if planted , may occur scattered through what are essentially ‘dry ground’ types (including poorly drained clays). If none of the following options seem to fit and alder and tall willows are only a minor part of the stand, consider one of the drier alternatives. Sometimes the alder community really exists, but only as a very narrow strip along a stream, with most of any plot falling into another type.

W4

National Vegetation Classification: English key  | 107 4a

TUSSOCK SEDGE or WOOD CLUB-RUSH generally abundant in the field layer with some of the following: LESSER POND-SEDGE, MARSH THISTLE, BROAD BUCKLER-FERN, HEMP AGRIMONY, MEADOW SWEET, MARSH BEDSTRAW, WATER MINT, BRAMBLE, COMMON VALERIAN. Usually on wet to water-logged organic soils, quite nutrient rich. Found mainly, but not exclusively in the lowlands. Often associated with fen peats and the transition to open water. Younger stands may have more SALLOW than ALDER. Large sedges are generally conspicuous, as well as tall herbs. REED may be present but is seldom as abundant as in W2. The three subcommunities vary in their herb-layer composition, but ALDER in the canopy and at least some TUSSOCK SEDGE are usually present.

W5

W5 ALDER–TUSSOCK SEDGE woodland 4b

STINGING NETTLE abundant with two of CLEAVERS, ROUGHSTALKED MEADOW-GRASS, BRAMBLE, BROAD BUCKLER-FERN Usually on fen peat with some nutrient accumulation or on rich alluvium. May contain other species of WILLOW. These are often rather ‘scruffy’ stands on the borderline between ‘dry ground’ communities and real wetland ones. In some cases it is a sign of drying out of previously wetter woods. The drier stands may include DOWNY BIRCH, or some SYCAMORE, ASH or OAK, sometimes with COMMON SALLOW or ELDER in the shrub layer. STINGING NETTLE and CLEAVERS are less abundant and the field layer may have more BRAMBLE, HONEYSUCKLE, BROAD BUCKLER-FERN or ENCHANTER’S NIGHTSHADE, WOOD AVENS and DOG’S MERCURY where there is local base enrichment. Wetter stands have more WILLOWS, with a field layer where STINGING NETTLE and CLEAVERS can be dense and luxuriant.

W6

W6 ALDER–STINGING NETTLE woodland 4c

ALDER often not as abundant as in the previous types. ASH and/or SILVER BIRCH frequent with mixtures of COMMON SALLOW, HAZEL and HAWTHORN in the shrub layer. Ground flora includes MEADOW SWEET, YELLOW PIMPERNEL, LADY FERN, ROUGH-STALKED MEADOW-GRASS, CREEPING SOFT-GRASS, CREEPING BUTTERCUP and/or GOLDEN SAXIFRAGE. On base-rich flushes with gleyed mineral soils. It is the commonest alder type in upland woods; it does occur in the lowlands but often in a rather fragmentary fashion along streams. The three subcommunities separate on the extent of waterlogging, the nature of the water supply and its movement. In one NETTLE can be abundant, in a second REMOTE SEDGE is usually common, whereas in the driest TUFTED HAIR-GRASS predominates. In all cases there is usually a range of other herbs and grasses, with sedges, rushes and ferns. W7 (unlike W4) rarely has PURPLE MOOR-GRASS and Sphagnum species.

W7 ALDER–ASH–YELLOW PIMPERNEL woodland

W7

108  |  Woodland Survey Handbook 5

Initial separation of ‘drier’ woodland

5a

BEECH frequent and usually abundant in the canopy. Moderate amounts of beech may cause problems, for example in regeneration gaps in otherwise beech-dominated canopies, where OAK or ASH may be more common in the gap; in oak woods in the south-west where beech is invading the stand. In small regeneration gaps consider the surrounding canopy and key through as appropriate. Old beech stands beyond the native range should be keyed out here.

Go to 6

5b

YEW frequent and abundant in the canopy with virtually no large emergent trees. (Some yew stands on the Downs may formerly have had a beech canopy, but where this has now been blown down and the yew forms the canopy, count as a yew stand.) The shade of the yew is generally so dense that virtually nothing grows with it except in small gaps where DOG’S MERCURY, NETTLE, IVY and FALSE WOODBROME may be found. Young ASH, WHITEBEAM (in a few sites BOX), BEECH and ELDER may also occur. Commonest on moderate–steep limestone or chalk slopes with thin soils (more rarely on moderate acid rocks in the Lake District). Most common in south-east England, but also locally abundant on the northern English limestones.

W13

W13 YEW woodland 5c

SCOTS PINE frequent and abundant in the canopy over a heathy ground flora with some of HEATHER, BELL HEATHERS, BILBERRY, COWBERRY and WAVY HAIR-GRASS. Mosses (including SPHAGNUM) may be abundant. Strictly speaking this applies only to native pine stands, so it does not occur in England or Wales. Some mature pine stands that have invaded former heathland or bog may have some of these characteristics but are usually better placed with W16 (see later).

W18

W18 SCOTS PINE–MOSS woodland 5d

Woods not as above, commonly with OAK, BIRCH, ASH or ELM as the main species but also including stands of HORNBEAM, LIME, SWEET CHESTNUT, SYCAMORE, etc., occurring on a range of soil types from acid to base rich and from sands to heavy clays.

6

Dividing up the beech woods

6a

Beech stands on base-rich, often thin soils, e.g. over chalk. The ground flora may be sparse, but DOG’S MERCURY, WOOD FALSE-BROME, ENCHANTER’S NIGHTSHADE, LORDS & LADIES, SANICLE or other species suggesting base-rich conditions are likely to be present. IVY is also often common. Associated trees and shrubs may include ASH, HAZEL, WHITEBEAM, YEW, HAWTHORN or SYCAMORE. Found on free-draining base-rich soils with a pH usually between 7 and 8. Largely in the south-east of Britain, often on the steep drift-free faces of chalk escarpments. Of the three subcommunities, one is usually found on deeper moister soils, a second on very shallow dry chalk or limestone soils; the third is characterised by a dense yew understorey and is closely related to W13 (YEW woodland).

W12 BEECH–DOG’S MERCURY woodland

Go to 7

W12

National Vegetation Classification: English key  | 109 6b

Beech stands on very acid ‘heathy’ sites usually with some WAVY HAIR-GRASS, BILBERRY or HEATHER present at least near or under gaps. BRACKEN, BENT GRASSES and WOOD-RUSHES also often common. HOLLY, OAKS and BIRCHES are the commonest associated trees and shrubs. Found on very base-poor acid soils mainly in southern England but long-established plantations in the north have many of the same characteristics. Some stands were formerly treated as woodpasture and contain large old pollards. The four subcommunities largely reflect trends in the level of light below the canopy from virtually no ground flora in the densest shade to HEATHER under stands with a discontinuous canopy cover.

W15

W15 BEECH–WAVY HAIR-GRASS woodland 6c

Beech stands often with a HOLLY understorey, and a ground flora showing indicators of neither very base-rich nor very acidic conditions. Frequently BRAMBLE or BRACKEN are common (depending on light levels), but other species such as IVY, WOOD MELICK, WOOD MILLET, BUTCHER’S BROOM or TUFTED HAIR-GRASS are also frequent. Generally found on moderately acid brown earth soils, often superficial deposits (e.g. clay with flints) over the southern chalk. Mainly in southern England but long-established plantations in the north and in the south-west may have these characteristics.

W14

W14 BEECH–BRAMBLE woodland 7

Dividing up the oak and mixed deciduous woods

7a

Woods on very acidic soils usually with OAK or BIRCH as dominants (sometimes self-sown PINE on lowland heaths and bogs), HOLLY and ROWAN are common understorey species, but often there is little shrub layer at all. Either BILBERRY, WAVY HAIR-GRASS or HEATHER present but with few other species, often with some BRACKEN, or extensive moss carpets.

Go to 8

7b

Woods on base-rich soils. ASH usually present, often abundant, but a range of other species including ELM, LIME, SYCAMORE or OAK (less often SWEET CHESTNUT or HORNBEAM) may be present. HAZEL is usually common in the understorey and in the south-east is often joined by FIELD MAPLE, PRIVET, DOGWOOD, SPINDLE and WAYFARING TREE. Ground flora includes at least some species characteristic of base-rich conditions such as DOG’S MERCURY, WOOD FALSE-BROME, ENCHANTER’S NIGHTSHADE, NETTLE, HERB ROBERT, CLEAVERS, RAMSONS, ROUGH-STALKED MEADOW-GRASS or GROUND IVY.

Go to 9

110  |  Woodland Survey Handbook 7c

Woods on moderately acid soils, often brown earths. OAK and BIRCH tend to dominate, but locally SWEET CHESTNUT, LIME and HORNBEAM may occur (also plantations of a variety of species). HAZEL and HAWTHORN are the commonest shrub species where an understorey is present. The ground flora usually has abundant BRAMBLE, BRACKEN, HONEYSUCKLE or BLUEBELL or is dominated by grasses (SOFT GRASSES, BENT GRASSES, WAVY HAIR-GRASS and SWEET VERNAL-GRASS). Species characteristic of base-rich conditions (see 7b) are absent (or very scarce).

8

Dividing up acid oak–birch woods

8a

OAKS or BIRCHES usually predominant (locally some pine on former heath and bog). Understorey may not be well developed but HOLLY, ROWAN or HAWTHORN are the most likely species to occur. Ground flora species poor, often BRACKEN dominated, but usually with WAVY HAIR-GRASS or BILBERRY and lacking species such as BLUEBELL. Mosses and liverworts may be common but with generally relatively few species and lacking ‘Atlantic’ indicators. This is found on very acidic, often sandy, very free-draining soils in the lowlands and upland fringes. Some long-established stands are former coppice or wood-pasture, but it is also typical of stands developed on lowland heath. W16 does spread into the uplands, particularly in south-west England, south Wales, Yorkshire and Northumberland. There are two subcommunities, one where BRACKEN and WAVY HAIR-GRASS predominate; in the second BILBERRY is more abundant.

Go to 10

W16

W16 OAK–WAVY HAIR-GRASS 8b

OAKS and BIRCHES predominate. The type is characterised by extensive and very diverse moss and liverwort cover on the ground, over rocks, tree bases, etc. (In ungrazed stands the abundance may be reduced but the diversity remains.) Key species are Dicranum majus, D. scoparium, Hylocomium splendens, Plagiothecium undulatum, Pleurozium scheberi, Polytrichum formosum, Rhytidiadelphus loreus and Thuidium tamariscinum, four or more of which are likely to be present. BILBERRY, BRACKEN, WOOD SORRELL, WAVY HAIR-GRASS and HARD FERN are the most commonly occurring ground flora species. There are four subcommunities partly reflecting variations from ‘Atlantic’ to more ‘Continental’ conditions; there is also a grassy version related to W11 (see below). Found on very acid soils, often shallow, rocky, mainly in the cooler, wet north-west of Britain. W17 may possibly occur in fragmentary form in the gill woods in the south-east but otherwise is absent from the lowlands, where W16 replaces it.

W17 OAK–BIRCH–MOSS woodland

W17

National Vegetation Classification: English key  | 111 9

Dividing up the base-rich woods (ash, elm, maple, etc.)

9a

ASH/OAK sometimes with occasional LIME, HORNBEAM or ELM. The understorey tends to have with FIELD MAPLE, DOGWOOD or SPINDLE, PRIVET or WAYFARING TREE. Ground flora often dominated by DOG’S MERCURY, WOOD ANEMONE, TUFTED HAIR-GRASS, IVY RAMSONS and/or BLUEBELL. Other base-rich indicators may be common, e.g. WOOD FALSE-BROME, ENCHANTER’S NIGHTSHADE, LORDS & LADIES, NETTLES, CLEAVERS and GROUND IVY. Seven subcommunities, of which three or four occur in the north-west of the overall range of the community. These subcommunities are more likely to have SYCAMORE, WYCH ELM and SESSILE OAK abundant, PEDUNCULATE OAK is rarer and the stands occur on light, welldrained but moist soils. On the moistest sites, RAMSONS is most distinctive, in a generally species-poor field layer with STINGING NETTLE and CLEAVERS, while the drier subcommunities have speciesrich, floristically dissimilar field layers. The other subcommunities are commoner on heavy soils, particularly in the south and east, and may be very variable in their tree and shrub cover (although ASH is nearly always frequent). Calcareous mull soils, generally in warmer, low-rainfall areas.

W8

W8 ASH–FIELD MAPLE–DOG’S MERCURY woodland 9b

ASH and ELM woods, found mainly in the uplands/upland fringe; ROWAN usually present but shrubs such as FIELD MAPLE, DOGWOOD, SPINDLE and PRIVET absent or very rare. WOOD SORREL more frequent than in W8 above, LORDS & LADIES less so. The field-layer species tend to form complex mosaics on irregular topography. DOG’S MERCURY and BLUEBELL are sometimes dominant, ENCHANTER’S NIGHTSHADE, WOOD AVENS, HERB ROBERT and WOOD FALSEBROME frequent. Ferns are very prominent; grasses may be frequent though not dominant. The community occurs on permanently moist brown soils derived from calcareous bedrock and superficial deposits in the submontane climate of north and west Britain.

W9

W9 ASH–ROWAN–DOG’s MERCURY woodland 10

Dividing up the woods on mesotrophic soils

10a

OAK/BIRCH, sometimes with small amounts of CHESTNUT, LIME, HORNBEAM. BEECH, ASH or SYCAMORE occur only rarely. HAZEL and HAWTHORN common in understorey. Ground flora of BRAMBLE, BRACKEN, HONEYSUCKLE with WOOD ANEMONE or BLUEBELL sometimes dominant, but lacking species typical of either very base-rich or acidic conditions. Found mainly on base-poor brown earths in the lowlands of Britain. In the upland fringes ASH and SYCAMORE may occur (they are usually absent) over stands with CREEPING SOFTGRASS, FERNS and WOOD SORREL (closely related to W11 below). There are five subcommunities characterised by relative abundance of IVY, WOOD ANEMONE, FERNS or YORKSHIRE FOG, along with the general ground flora species of the type.

W10 OAK–BRACKEN–BRAMBLE woodland

W10

112  |  Woodland Survey Handbook 10b

BIRCH and OAK stands often with HAZEL and ROWAN. BRACKEN and BRAMBLE do occur (cf. W10) but also with several of the following: WOOD SORREL, SWEET VERNAL-GRASS, WAVY HAIR-GRASS, CREEPING SOFT-GRASS, BENT GRASSES, TORMENTIL and HEATH BEDSTRAW. Mosses are more abundant than in W10, and include some of the species also found in W17. There are four subcommunities covering Atlantic to more Continental conditions, but all tend to have a very grassy appearance. The type occurs on free-draining moderately acid, base-poor brown earths in the cooler, wetter parts of Britain, mainly the uplands and upland fringes.

W11 OAK–BIRCH–WOOD SORREL woodland

W11

APPENDIX 4

Annex I: Woodland types recognised in the UK From Annex I of the Habitats Directive: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/Publications/JNCC312/ UK_habitat_list.asp 9120

Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrub layer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici–Fagenion)

9130

Asperulo–Fagetum beech forests

9160

Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak–hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli

9180

Tilio–Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines

9190

Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains

91A0

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles

91C0

Caledonian forest

91D0

Bog woodland

91E0

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno–Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

91J0

Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles

References Adamson, R.S. (1912) An ecological study of a Cambridgeshire woodland. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Botany 40: 339–387. Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J.P., De Blust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H. and Matthysen, E. (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 233–247. Alexander, K.N.A. and Lister, J.A. (2003) Thames and Chilterns: parkland and wood pastures with veteran trees phase 1 provisional inventory 2002/03. English Nature Research Reports 520. Peterborough: English Nature. Alexander, K.N.A., Butler, J. and Green, T. (2006) The value of different tree and shrub species to wildlife. British Wildlife 18: 18–28. Allen, M.J. (2017) The southern English chalklands: molluscan evidence for the nature of the post-glacial woodland cover. In M.J. Allen (ed.) Molluscs in Archaeology: Methods, approaches and applications. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 144–164. Anderson, M.C. (1964) Studies of the woodland light climate: I. The photographic computation of light conditions. Journal of Ecology 52: 27–41. Andre, P. and Chapman, J. (1777) A Map of the County of Essex from an Actual Survey. London. Armstrong, H., Black, B., Holl, K. and Thompson, R. (2014) Assessing herbivore impact in woodlands: a subjective method. Available at: http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/woodland-grazing-toolbox. Accessed December 2017. Ashmole, M. and Ashmole, P. (2009) The Carrifran Wildwood Story: Ecological restoration from the grass roots. Ancrum: Borders Forest Trust. Atherton, I., Bosanquet, S. and Lawley, M. (eds) (2010) Mosses and Liverworts of Britain and Ireland: A field guide. UK: British Bryological Society, http://www.britishbryologicalsociety.org.uk/. Backmeroff, C.E. and Peterken, G.F. (1988) Long-term changes in the woodlands of Clairinsh. Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh 45: 253–297. Bainbridge, I., Brown, A., Burnett, N., Corbett, P., Cork, C., Ferris, R., Howe, M., Maddock, A., Mountford, E. and Pritchard, S. (eds) (2013) Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Part 1: Rationale, operational approach and criteria for site selection. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Bakker, J.P., Olff, H., Willems, J.H. and Zobel, M. (1996) Why do we need permanent plots in the study of long-term vegetation dynamics? Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 147–156.

References  | 115 Balchin, W.G.V. (1984) Data sources for land use survey. Land Use Policy 1: 4–13. Ball, D. and Stevens, P. (1981) The role of ‘ancient’woodlands in conserving ‘undisturbed’ soils in Britain. Biological Conservation 19: 163–176. Balmer, D. E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B., Swann, R., Downie, I. and Fuller, R. 2013. Bird Atlas 2007–11: The breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland, BTO Thetford. Bannister, N.R. (1996) Woodland Archaeology in Surrey: Its recognition and management. Guildford: Surrey County Council Planning Department. Barker-Plotkin, A. and Foster, D. (2006) Sustaining long-term research through changing times at the Harvard Forest. In A.E. Camp, L.C. Irland and C.J.W. Carroll (eds) Longterm Silvicultural and Ecological Studies: Results for science and management. New Haven: Yale University. pp. 41–52. Barnes, G. and Willliamson, T. (2015) Rethinking Ancient Woodland: The archaeology and history of woods in Norfolk. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Battersby, J. (2005) UK Mammals: Species status and population trends. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee/Tracking Mammals Partnership. Bianchi, S., Cahalan, C., Hale, S. and Gibbons, J.M. (2017) Rapid assessment of forest canopy and light regime using smartphone hemispherical photography. Ecology and Evolution 7, 10556–10566. Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. and Mustoe, S H. (2000) Bird Census Techniques, 2nd edn. London: Academic Press. Biggs, J., Ewald, N., Valentini, A., Gaboriaud, C., Dejean, T., Griffiths, R.A., Foster, J., Wilkinson, J.W., Arnell, A., Brotherton, P., Williams, P. and Dunn, F. (2015) Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Biological Conservation 183: 19–28. Birks, H.J.B. (1982) Mid‐Flandrian forest history of Roudsea Wood National Nature Reserve, Cumbria. New Phytologist 90: 339–354. Birks, H.J.B. (1996) Contributions of Quaternary palaeoecology to nature conservation. Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 89–98. Birse, E.L. (1980) Plant Communites of Scotland: Revised and additional tables, a preliminary phytocoenomia. Soil Survey of Scotland Bulletin. Aberdeen: Macauley Institute for Soil Research. Birse, E.L. and Robertson, J.S. (1976) Plant Communities and Soils of the Lowland and Southern Upland Regions of Scotland. Soil Survey of Scotland Monograph. Aberdeen: Macauley Institute for Soil Research. Bitterlich, W. (1984) The Relascope Idea. Relative measurements in forestry. Wallingford: CABI. Blackstock, T.H., Howe, E.A., Stevens, J.P., Burrows, C.R. and Jones, P.S. (2010) Habitats of Wales. Cardiff: University of Cardiff. Blockeel, T.L., Bosanquet, S.D.S., Hill, M.O. and Preston, C.D. (2014) Atlas of British and Irish bryophytes. Newbury: Pisces Publiscations. Braithwaite, M.E., Ellis, R.W. and Preston, C.D. (2006) Change in the British Flora 1987–2004. London: Botanical Society of the British Isles.

116  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Brandt, J.J.E., Bunce, R.G.H., Howard, D.C. and Petit, S. (2002) General principles of monitoring land cover change based on two case studies in Britain and Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning 62: 37–51. Bright, P.W., Morris, P.A. and Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (1996) A new survey of the dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius in Britain, 1993–4. Mammal Review 26: 189–195. British Lichen Society (1982) Survey and assessment of epiphytic lichen habitats. CSD Research Report. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. Brown, N., Jennings, S., Wheeler, P. and Nabe‐Nielsen, J. (2000) An improved method for the rapid assessment of forest understorey light environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 1044–1053. Buckley, G.P. (1992) Ecology and Management of Coppiced Woodland. London: Chapman and Hall. Buckley, G.P., Helliwell, D.R., Milne, S. and Howell, R. (2017) Twenty-five years on – vegetation succession on a translocated ancient woodland soil at Biggins Wood, Kent, UK. Forestry 90: 561–572. Buée, M., Reich, M., Murat, C., Morin, E., Nilsson, R.H., Uroz, S. and Martin, F. (2009) 454 pyrosequencing analyses of forest soils reveal an unexpectedly high fungal diversity. New Phytologist 184: 449–456. Buesching, C., Clarke, J., Ellwood, S., King, C., Newman, C. and Macdonald, D. (2010) The mammals of Wytham Woods. In P.S. Savill, C. Perrins, C., K.J. Kirby and N. Fisher (eds). Wytham Woods: Oxford’s ecological laboratory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 173–196. Bunce, R.G.H. (1968) Biomass and production of trees in a mixed deciduous woodland: I. Girth and height as parameters for the estimation of tree dry weight. Journal of Ecology 56: 759–775. Bunce, R.G.H. (1982) A Field Key for Classifying British Woodland Vegetation. Cambridge: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Bunce, R.G.H. and Jeffers, J.N.R. (1977) Native Pinewoods of Scotland: Proceedings of Aviemore Symposium, 1975. Edinburgh: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Bunce, R.G.H. and Shaw, M.W. (1973) A standardized procedure for ecological survey. Journal of Environmental Management 1: 239–258. Burns, M., Hancock, E.G., Robinson, J., Cornforth, I. and Blake, S. (2014) Two novel flightinterception trap designs for low-cost forest insect surveys. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 27: 155–162. Butt, N., Campbell, G., Malhi, Y., Morecroft, M., Fenn, K. and Thomas, M. (2009) Initial Results from Establishment of a Long-term Broadleaf Monitoring Plot at Wytham Woods, Oxford, UK. Oxford: University of Oxford. Cannell, M.G., Malcolm, D.C. and Robertson, P.A. (eds) (1992) The Ecology of Mixed-species Stands of Trees. Oxford: Blackwell (British Ecological Society Symposium 11). Carey, P.D. (2015) Impacts of climate change on terrestrial habitats and vegetation. Biodiversity Climate Change Report Card Technical Paper 5. London: Living with Environmental Change.

References  | 117 Castle, G. and Mileto, R. (2003) Using the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) in woodland survey – 6000ha on. In E.A. Goldberg (ed.) National Vegetation Classification – Ten years of experience of using the woodland section. JNCC Report 335. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. pp. 76–86. Castle, G. and Mileto, R. (2005) Development of a veteran tree site assessment protocol. English Nature Research Report 628. Peterborough: English Nature. Castle, G., Latham, J. and Mileto, R. (2008) Identifying ancient woodland in Wales – the role of the ancient woodland inventory, historical maps and indicator species. CCW Contract Science Report. Bangor: Countryside Council for Wales. Catchpole, R. (2006) Planning for biodiversity – opportunity mapping and habitat networks in practice: a technical guide. English Nature Research Report 687. Peterborough: English Nature. Chapman, A.D. (2005) Principles of Data Quality (version 1.0). Copenhagen: Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Cherrill, A. and McClean, C. (1995) An investigation of uncertainty in field habitat mapping and the implications for detecting land cover change. Landscape Ecology 10: 5–21. Cherrill, A. and McClean, C. (1999) The reliability of ‘Phase 1’ habitat mapping in the UK: the extent and types of observer bias. Landscape and Urban Planning 45: 131–143. Coleman, A. and Shaw, J.E. (1980) Land Utilisation Survey: Field Mapping Manual. London: Second Land Utilisation Survey of Britain. Collins, T., Dickerson, B., Walker, P.E.G. and Wells, T.C.E. (2005) Brampton Wood: A natural history. Hunstanton: Huntingdonshire Flora and Fauna Society. Cooke, A.S. (2006) Monitoring muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi and their impacts in Monks Wood National Nature Reserve. English Nature Research Report 681. Peterborough: English Nature. Cooke, R.J. and Kirby, K.J. (1994) The use of a new woodland classification in surveys for nature conservation purposes in England and Wales. Arboricultural Journal 18: 167–186. Coppins, A.M. and Coppins, B.J. (2002) Indices of Ecological Continuity for Woodland Epiphytic Lichen Habitats in the British Isles. British Lichen Society. Available at: http://www.britishlichensociety.org.uk/. Accessed December 2017. Coppins, S. and Coppins, B.J. (2012) Atlantic Hazel: Scotland’s special woodlands. Edinburgh: Atlantic Hazel Action Group. Crawford, C. (2009) Ancient woodland indicator plants in Scotland. Scottish Forestry 63: 6–19. Crone, A. and Mills, C.M. (2015) Seeing the wood and the trees: dendrochronological studies in Scotland. Antiquity 76: 788–794. Crossley, D.A. and Blair, J.M. (1991) A high-efficiency, ‘low-technology’ Tullgren-type extractor for soil microarthropods. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 34: 187–192. Crow, P., Benham, S., Devereux, B.J. and Amable, G.S. (2007) Woodland vegetation and its implications for archaeological survey using LiDAR. Forestry 80: 241–252.

118  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Dahlberg, A., Genney, D.R. and Heilmann-Clausen, J. (2010) Developing a comprehensive strategy for fungal conservation in Europe: current status and future needs. Fungal Ecology 3: 50–64. Davies, A.L. (2011) Long-term approaches to native woodland restoration: palaeoecological and stakeholder perspectives on Atlantic forests of northern Europe. Forest Ecology and Management 261: 751–763. Davies, C.E., Moss, D. and Hill, M.O. (2004) EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Copenhagen: Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiersity, European Environment Agency. Dawkins, H.C.D. and Field, D.R.B. (1978) A long-term surveillance system for British woodland vegetation. Commonwealth Forestry Institute Occasional Paper 1. Oxford: Commonwealth Forestry Institute. Day, S.P. (1993) Woodland origin and ‘ancient woodland indicators’: a case-study from Sidlings Copse, Oxfordshire, UK. The Holocene 3: 45–53. DEFRA 2017. Wild Bird Populations in the UK 1970 to 2016. London: Defra. Deiner, K., Bik, H.M., Mächler, E., Seymour, M., Lacoursière‐Roussel, A., Altermatt, F., Creer, S., Bista, I., Lodge, D.M. and Vere, N. (2017) Environmental DNA metabarcoding: transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology 26: 5872–5895. Drake, C.M., Lott, D.A., Alexander, K.N.A. and Webb, J. (2007) Surveying terrestial and freshwater invertebrates for conservation evaluation. Natural England Research Report 5. Peterborough: Natural England. Edwards, M.E. (1986) Disturbance histories of four Snowdonian woodlands and their relation to Atlantic bryophyte distributions. Biological Conservation 37: 301–320. Edwards, P.N. (1983) Timber measurement: a field guide. Forestry Commission Booklet. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. Ellenberg, H. (1988) The Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellenberg, H., Weber, H.E., Düll, R., Wirth, V., Werner, W. and Paulissen, D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica 18. Elton, C.S. (1966) The Pattern of Animal Communities. London: Chapman and Hall. Englund, S.R., O’Brien, J.J. and Clark, D.B. (2000) Evaluation of digital and film hemispherical photography and spherical densiometry for measuring forest light environments. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1999–2005. Ewing, S.R., Eaton, M.A., Poole, T.F., Davies, M. and Haysom, S. (2012) The size of the Scottish population of capercaillie Tetrao urogallus: results of the fourth national survey. Bird Study 59: 126–138. Farjon, A. (2017) Ancient Oaks in the English Landscape. London: Kew. Fay, N. and De Berker, N. (1997) Veteran Trees Initiative Specialist Survey Method. Peterborough: Veteran Trees Initiative/English Nature.

References  | 119 Fay, N. and De Berker, N. (2003) Evaluation of the specialist survey method for veteran tree recording. English Nature Research Report 529. Peterborough: English Nature. Fenn, K., Malhi, Y., Morecroft, M., Lloyd, C. and Thomas, M. (2010) Comprehensive description of the carbon cycle of an ancient temperate broadleaved woodland. Biogeosciences Discussions 7: 3735–3763. Ferris, R., Peace, A.J. and Newton, A.C. (2000) Macrofungal communities of lowland Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten.) plantations in England: relationships with site factors and stand structure. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 255–267. Floyd, D.A. and Anderson, J.A. (1987) A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover. Journal of Ecology 65: 201–212. Foard, G. (2001) Medieval woodland, agriculture and industry in Rockingham Forest, Northamptonshire. Medieval Archaeology 45: 41–95. Ford, E.D., Malcolm, D.C. and Atterson, J. (1979) The Ecology of Even-aged Plantations. Cambridge: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Forestry Commission (2003) National Inventory of Woodland and Trees. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. Forestry Commission (2010) Managing Ancient and Native Woodland in England. Bristol: Forestry Commission England. Forestry Commission (2012) NFI Preliminary Estimates of Quantities of Broadleaved Species in British Woodlands, with Special Focus on Ash. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. Fortey, R. (2016) The Wood for the Trees: The long view of nature from a small wood. London: William Collins. Fowles, A., Alexander, K. and Key, R. (1999) The Saproxylic Quality Index: evaluating wooded habitats for the conservation of dead-wood Coleoptera. Coleopterist 8: 121–141. Francis, J.L. and Morton, A. (2001) Enhancement of amenity woodland field layers in Milton Keynes. British Wildlife 12: 244–251. Fraser, S.E.M., Dytham, C. and Mayhew, P.J. (2007) Determinants of parasitoid abundance and diversity in woodland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 352–361. Fry, R. and Waring, P. (2001) A Guide to Moth Traps and Their Use. Amateur Entomologists’ Society, London. Fuentes-Montemayor, E., Goulson, D., Cavin, L., Wallace, J.M. and Park, K.J. (2012) Factors influencing moth assemblages in woodland fragments on farmland: implications for woodland management and creation schemes. Biological Conservation 153: 265–275. Fuller, R.J. (1995) Birdlife of Woodland and Forest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fuller, R.J. and Gill, R. (eds) (2001) Ecological impacts of deer in British woodland. Forestry 74: 193–299. Fuller, R.J. and Rothery, P. (2013) Temporal consistency in fine-scale habitat relationships of woodland birds during a period of habitat deterioration. Forest Ecology and Management 289: 164–174.

120  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Glaves, P., Handley, C., Birbeck, J., Rotherham, I. and Wright, B. (2009) A Survey of the Coverage, Use and Application of Ancient Woodland Indicator çlists in the UK. Grantham: Woodland Trust. Goldberg, E.A. (2003) National Vegetation Classification – ten years of experience of using the woodland section. JNCC Research Report 335. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Goldberg, E.A., Kirby, K.J., Hall, J.E. and Latham, J. (2007) The ancient woodland concept as a practical conservation tool in Great Britain. Journal of Nature Conservation 15: 109–119. Goldberg, E.A., Peterken, G.F. and Kirby, K.J. (2011) Origin and evolution of the Ancient Woodland Inventory. British Wildlife 23: 90–96. Gove, B., Power, S.A., Buckley, G.P. and Ghazoul, J. (2007) Effects of herbicide spray drift and fertilizer overspread on selected species of woodland ground flora: comparison between short-term and long-term impact assessments and field surveys. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 374–384. Grieve, Y. and Nanager, N.D. (2011) The Native Woodland Survey of Scotland Database: what you get and how to get it. Scottish Forestry 65: 5–9. Griffith, G.W., Bratton, J.H. and Easton, G. (2004) Charismatic megafungi – the conservation of waxcap grasslands. British Wildlife 16: 31–43. Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J.G. and Hunt, R. (2007) Comparative Plant Ecology: A functional approach to common British species, rev. edn. Dalbeattie: Castlepoint Press. (Original work published 1988) Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2003) A manual and tutorial for the proper use of an increment borer. Tree-ring Research 59: 63–79. Gouix, N., Sebek, P., Valladares, L., Brustel, H. and Brin, A. (2015) Habitat requirements of the violet click beetle (Limoniscus violaceus), an endangered umbrella species of basal hollow trees. Insect Conservation and Diversity 8: 418–427. Gulliver, R. (1995) Woodland history and plant indicator species in north-east Yorkshire, England. In R. Butlin and N. Roberts (eds) Ecological Relations in Historic Time. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 169–190. Gurnell, J. and Flowerdew, J.R. (2006) Live Trapping Small Mammals. London: Mammal Society. Hale, S.E. and Brown, N. (2005) Use of the canopy-scope for assessing canopy openness in plantation forests. Forestry 78: 365–371. Hall, J.E. and Kirby, K.J. (1998) The relationship between Biodiversity Action Plan priority and broad woodland habitat types and other woodland classifications. JNCC Report 288. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Hall, J.E., Kirby, K.J. and Whitbread, A.M. (2001) National Vegetation Classification Field Guide to Woodland. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Hambler, C., Wint, G.R.W. and Rogers, D.J. (2010) Invertebrates. In P.S. Savill, C.M. Perrins, K.J. Kirby and N. Fisher (eds) Wytham Woods, Oxford’s Ecological Laboratory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 109–144.

References  | 121 Hamilton, G.J. (1975) Forest mensuration handbook. Forestry Commission Booklet 39. London: Forestry Commission. Handley, L.L. (2015) How will the ‘molecular revolution’ contribute to biological recording? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 115: 750–766. Haneca, K., Katarina, Č. and Beeckman, H. (2009) Oaks, tree-rings and wooden cultural heritage: a review of the main characteristics and applications of oak dendrochronology in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1–11. Harding, P.T. and Rose, F. (1986) Pasture-woodlands in Lowland Britain. Huntingdon: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Harley, J.B. (1975) Ordnance Survey Maps: A descriptive manual. Southampton: Ordnance Survey. Harley, J.L. and Harley, E. (1987) A check-list of mycorrhiza in the British flora. New Phytologist 105: 1–102. Harmer, R., Peterken, G.F., Kerr, G. and Poulton, P. (2001) Vegetation changes during 100 years of development of two secondary woodlands on abandoned arable land. Biological Conservation 101: 291–304. Heard, M.S., Carvell, C., Carreck, N.L., Rothery, P., Osborne, J.L. and Bourke, A.F.G. (2007) Landscape context not patch size determines bumble-bee density on flower mixtures sown for agri-environment schemes. Biology Letters 3: 638–641. Hearn, S.M., Healey, J.R., McDonald, M.A., Turner, A.J., Wong, J.L.G. and Stewart, G.B. (2011) The repeatability of vegetation classification and mapping. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1174–1184. Heaver, D., Webb, J., Roy, D., Dean, H., Harvey, M., Macadam, C. and Curson, J. (2017) Pantheon: a new resource for invertebrate survey standards and analysis. In Practice: Bulletin of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 98: 25–29. Henderson, D.M. and Mann, D. (1984) Birches. Royal Society of Edinburgh, Proceedings B 85: 1–213. Hermy, M., Honnay, O., Firbank, L., Grashof-Bokdam, C. and Lawesson, J.E. (1999) An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biological Conservation 91: 9–22. Heward, C. J., Hoodless, A. N., Conway, G. J., Aebischer, N. J., Gillings, S. and Fuller, R. J. (2015) Current status and recent trend of the Eurasian Woodcock Scolopax rusticola as a breeding bird in Britain. Bird Study 62: 535–551. Hewitt, R. (2011) Map of a Nation: A biography of the Ordnance Survey. London: Granta Books. Hewson, C.M., Amar, A., Lindsell, J.A., Thewlis, R.M., Butler, S., Smith, K.E.N. and Fuller, R.J. (2007) Recent changes in bird populations in British broadleaved woodland. Ibis 149: 14–28. Hill, A. (2003) Plant species as indicators of ancient woodland in the Malvern Hills and Teme Valley natural area. PhD thesis, Coventry University. Hill, M.O., Preston, C.D. and Roy, D.B. (2004) PLANTATT: Attributes of British and Irish plants. Cambridge: Biological Records Centre (NERC).

122  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Hill, R.A., Wilson, A.K., George, M. and Hinsley, S.A. (2010) Mapping tree species in termperate deciduous woodland using time-series multi-spectral data. Applied Vegetation Science 13: 86–99. Hinsley, S., Hill, R., Gaveau, D. and Bellamy, P. (2002) Quantifying woodland structure and habitat quality for birds using airborne laser scanning. Functional Ecology 16: 851–857. HMSO (1952) Census of Woodlands 1947–1949. London: HMSO. Hodgson, J.G., Colasanti, R. and Sutton, F. (1995) Monitoring grasslands. Volume 1. English Nature Research Report 156. Peterborough: English Nature. Holl, K. and Smith, M. (2002) Ancient wood-pasture in Scotland: Classification and management principles. Edinburgh: Scottish Natural Heritage. Holmes, W. and Wheaten, A. (2002) The Blean: The woodlands of a cathedral city. Whitstable: Blean Research Group. Holt, C.A., Fuller, R.J. and Dolman, P.M. (2010) Experimental evidence that deer browsing reduces habitat suitability for breeding common nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos. Ibis 152: 335–346. Hopkins, J.J. and Kirby, K.J. (2007) Ecological change in British broadleaved woodland since 1947. Ibis 149: 29–40. Humphrey, J.W. (2006) Ecology and management of native pinewoods: overview of special issue. Forestry 79: 245–247. Humphrey, J.W., Ferris, R. and Quine, C.P. (2003) Biodiversity in Britain’s Planted Forests: Result from the Forestry Commission’s biodiversity assessment project. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. Humphrey, J.W., Sippola, A., Lempérière, G., Dodelin, B., Alexander, K. and Butler, J. (2005) Deadwood as an indicator of biodiversity in European forests: from theory to operational guidance. In M. Marchetti (ed.) Monitoring and Indicators of Forest Biodiversity in Europe – From ideas to operationality. Joensuu: European Forest Institute. pp. 193–206. Humphrey, J., Watts, K., Fuentes-Montemayor, E., Macgregor, N. and Park, K. (2013) The Evidence Base for Ecological Networks: Lessons from studies of woodland fragmentation and creation. Report from the WrEn Project. Forest Research, Farnham, Surrey. Hurford, C. and Schneider, M. (2006) Monitoring Nature Conservation in Cultural Habitats. Dordrecht: Springer. Independent Panel on Forestry (2012) Final Report. London: Defra. Jofré, G.M., Warn, M.R. and Reading, C.J. (2016) The role of managed coniferous forest in the conservation of reptiles. Forest Ecology and Management 362: 69–78. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (1998) A Statement on Common Standards Monitoring. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Jukes, M. and Peace, A. (2003) Invertebrate communities in plantation forests. In J.W. Humphrey, C.P. Quine and R. Ferris (eds) Biodiversity in Britain’s Planted Forests. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission, pp. 75–91.

References  | 123 Keith, S.A., Newton, A.C., Morecroft, M.D., Bealey, C.E. and Bullock, J.M. (2009) Taxonomic homogenization of woodland plant communities over 70 years. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276: 3539–3544. Kennedy, C. and Southwood, T. (1984) The number of species of insects associated with British trees: a re-analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology 53: 455–478. Kipling, R. (1892) ‘In the Neolithic Age’. Available at: http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/ rg_neolithic1.htm Kirby, K.J. (1988) A woodland survey handbook. Research and Survey in Natural Conservation 8. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council/Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Kirby, K.J. (1993) Assessing nature conservation values in British woodland. Arboricultural Journal 17: 253–276. Kirby, K.J. (2015a) Changes in the vegetation of clear-fells and closed canopy stands in an English oak wood over a 30-year period. New Journal of Botany 5: 2–12. Kirby, K.J. (2015b) What might a sustainable population of trees in wood-pasture sites look like? Hacquetia 14: 43–52. Kirby, K.J. (2016a) Charles Elton and Wytham Woods. British Wildlife 27: 256–263. Kirby, K.J. (2016b) The transition of Wytham Woods from a working estate to unique research site (1943–1965). Landscape History 37: 79–92. Kirby, K.J. and Buckley, G.P. (1994) Ecological responses to the 1987 Great Storm in the woods of south-east England. English Nature Science 23. Peterborough: English Nature. Kirby, K.J. and Thomas, R.C. (2000a) Changes in the ground flora in Wytham Woods, southern England from 1974 to 1991 – implications for nature conservation. Journal of Vegetation Science 11: 871–880. Kirby, K.J. and Thomas, R.C. (2000b) A comparison of the structure and composition of the Warburg Reserve between 1973 and 1992. English Nature Research Report 445. Peterborough: English Nature. Kirby, K.J. and Thomas, R.C. (2017) Restoration of broadleaved woodland under the 1985 Broadleaves Policy stimulates ground flora recovery at Shabbington Woods, southern England. New Journal of Botany 7: 125–135. Kirby, K.J. and Watkins, C. (2015) Europe’s Changing Woods and Forests: From wildwood to managed landscapes. Wallingford: CABI. Kirby, K.J., Bines, T., Burn, A., Mackintosh, J., Pitkin, P. and Smith, I. (1986) Seasonal and observer differences in vascular plant records from British woodlands. Journal of Ecology 74: 123–131. Kirby, K.J., Saunders, G.R. and Whitbread, A.M. (1991) The National Vegetation Classification in nature conservation surveys. British Wildlife 3: 70–80. Kirby, K.J., Mitchell, F.J.G. and Hester, A.J. (1994) A role for large herbivores (deer and domestic stock) in nature conservation management in British semi-natural woods. Arboricultural Journal 18: 381–399.

124  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Kirby, K.J., Reid, C.M., Thomas, R.C. and Goldsmith, F.B. (1998) Preliminary estimates of fallen dead wood and standing dead trees in managed and unmanaged forests in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 148–155. Kirby, K.J., Latham, J., Holl, K., Bryce, J., Corbett, P. and Watson, R. (2002) Objective setting and condition monitoring within woodland sites of special scientific interest. English Nature Research Report 472. Peterborough: English Nature. Kirby, K.J., Smart, S.M., Black, H.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Corney, P.M. and Smithers, R.J. (2005) Long-term ecological changes in British woodland (1971–2001). English Nature Research Report 653. Peterborough: English Nature. Kirby, K.J., Jefferson, R., Larwood, J., Russell, D., Le Bas, B. and Wright, R. (2010) What has the SSSI improvement programme achieved for nature conservation in England? British Wildlife 22: 16–25. Kirby, K.J., Pyatt, D.G. and Rodwell, J.S. (2012) Characterization of the woodland flora and woodland communities in Britain using Ellenberg values and functional analysis. In I.D. Rotherham, M. Jones and C. Handley (eds) Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts: Volume 1. The wooded landscape. Sheffield: Wildtrack Publishing. pp. 66–86. Kirby, K.J., Bazely, D.R., Goldberg, E.A., Hall, J.E., Isted, R., Perry, S.C. and Thomas, R.C. (2014) Changes in the tree and shrub layer of Wytham Woods (southern England) 1974– 2012: local and national trends compared. Forestry 87: 663–673. Kirby, K.J., Goldberg, E.A., Isted, R., Perry, S.C. and Thomas, R.C. (2016) Long-term changes in the tree and shrub layers of a British nature reserve and their relevance for woodland conservation management. Journal for Nature Conservation 31: 51–60. Kirby, K.J., Goldberg, E.A. and Orchard, N. (2017) Long-term changes in the flora of oak forests and of oak:spruce mixtures following removal of conifers. Forestry 90: 136–147. Kirby, P. (1992) Habitat Management for Invertebrates: A practical handbook. Sandy: RSPB. Koop, H. (1989) Forest Dynamics: SILVI-STAR: A comprehensive monitoring system. Berlin: Springer. Landon, J. (1988) Towards a standard field assessment of soil texture for mineral soils. Soil Survey and Land Evaluation (UK) 8: 161–165. Larsen, R.S., Bell, J.N.B., James, P.W., Chimonides, P.J., Rumsey, F.J., Tremper, A. and Purvis, O.W. (2007) Lichen and bryophyte distribution on oak in London in relation to air pollution and bark acidity. Environmental Pollution 146: 332–340. Latham, J. and Blackstock, T.H. (1998) Effects of livestock exclusion on the ground flora and regeneration of an upland Alnus glutinosa woodland. Forestry 71: 191–197. Latham, J., Sherry, J. and Rothwell, J. (2013) Ecological connectivity and biodiversity prioritisation in the terrestrial environment for Wales. CCW Staff Science Report. Bangor: Countryside Council for Wales. Lawton, J. (2010) Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. London: Defra. Leather, S.R.E. (2005) Insect Sampling in Forest Ecosystems. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Lindenmayer, D.B., Likens, G.E., Andersen, A., Bowman, D., Bull, C.M., Burns, E., Dickman, C.R., Hoffmann, A.A., Keith, D.A., Liddell, M.J., Lowe, A.J., Metcalfe, D.J.,

References  | 125 Phinn, S.R., Russell-Smith, J., Thurgate, N. and Wardle, G.M. (2012) Value of long-term ecological studies. Austral Ecology 37: 745–757. Ling, K.A. (2003) Using environmental and growth characteristics of plants to detect long-term changes in response to atmospheric pollution: some examples from British beechwoods. Science of the Total Environment 310: 203–210. Linhart, Y.B. and Whelan, R.J. (1980) Woodland regeneration in relation to grazing and fencing in Coed Gorswen, North Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology 17: 827–840. Linnard, W. (1982) Welsh Woods and Forests: History and utilisation. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales. Liu, B., Bonet, J.A., Fischer, C.R., Martínez-de-Aragón, J., Bassie, L. and Colinas, C. (2016) Lactarius deliciosus Fr. soil extra-radical mycelium correlates with stand fruitbody productivity and is increased by forest thinning. Forest Ecology and Management 380: 196–201. Locke, G.M.L. (1970) Census of Woodlands 1965–67. London: HMSO. Locke, G.M.L. (1987) Census of Woodlands 1979–82. London: HMSO. Lonsdale, D. (2013) Ancient and Other Veteran Trees: Further guidance on management. London: Tree Council. Lorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., Doughty, C., Barua, M. and Kirby, K.J. (2015) Rewilding: science, practice, and politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40: 39–62. Lunn, A. (2004) Northumberland. London: Collins. Lush, M.J. (2012) A Provisional Inventory of Wood-pasture and Parkland for England (Excluding Counties in the South-east of England). Peterborough: Natural England. Lush, M.J., Brewer, A.M., Hewins, E.J. and Lush, C.E. (2012) Establishing the Condition and Monitoring Baseline for Non-statutory Woodland Habitats in England and Wales (WC0772). London: Defra. MacKenzie, N.A. and Clifford, T. (2010) A woodland profile survey and assessment of herbivore impacts for Ben Hope SSSI. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report 405. Edinburgh: Scottish Natural Heritage. Malcolm, D., Cochrane, P., Cottrell, J. and Chamberlain, D. (2005) Preface. Botanical Journal of Scotland 57: vii. Mason, C.F. and MacDonald, S.M. (2004) Growth in otter (Lutra lutra) populations in the UK as shown by long-term monitoring. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 33: 148–152. McDonald, R.A. and Harris, S. (1999) The use of trapping records to monitor populations of stoats Mustela erminea and weasels M. nivalis: the importance of trapping effort. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 679–688. McInerny, C.J. (2014) Observations on a population of adders, slow-worms and common lizards on Loch Lomondside, Scotland. The Glasgow Naturalist 26: 63–68. McMahon, S.M., Bebber, D.P., Butt, N., Crockatt, M., Kirby, K.J., Parker, G.G., Riutta, T. and Slade, E.M. (2015) Ground based LiDAR demonstrates the legacy of management

126  |  Woodland Survey Handbook history to canopy structure and composition across a fragmented temperate woodland. Forest Ecology and Management 335: 255–260. Methley, J. (2001) Let’s start with diameter. Forestry and British Timber 30(4): 26–28. Mihók, B., Kenderes, K., Kirby, K.J., Paviour-Smith, K. and Elbourn, C.A. (2009) Forty-year changes in the canopy and the understorey in Wytham Woods. Forestry 82: 515–527. Mikusiński, G., Roberge, J.-M. and Fuller, R.J. (2018) Ecology and Conservation of Forest Birds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miles, D., Palmer, S., Smith, A. and Jones, G.P. (2007) Iron Age and Roman Settlement in the Upper Thames Valley. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology Unit. Mitchell, F.J.G. and Kirby, K.J. (1990) The impact of large herbivores on the conservation of semi-natural woods in the British uplands. Forestry 63: 333–353. Mitchell, R.J., Truscot, A.M., Leith, I.D., Cape, J.N., Van Dijk, N., Tang, Y.S., Fowler, D. and Sutton, M.A. (2005) A study of the epiphytic communities of Atlantic oak woods along an atmospheric nitrogen deposition gradient. Journal of Ecology 93: 482–492. Mitchell, R.J., Bailey, S., Beaton, J.K., Bellamy, P.E., Brooker, R.W., Broome, A., Chetcuti, J., Eaton, S., Ellis, C.J., Farren, J., Gimona, A., Goldberg, E., Hall, J., Harmer, R., Hester, A.J., Hewison, R.L., Hodgetts, N.G., Hooper, R.J. Howe, L., Iason, G.R., Kerr, G., Littlewood, N.A., Morgan, V., Newey, S., Potts, J.M., Pozsgai, G., Ray, D., Sim, D.A., Stockan, J.A., Taylor, A.F.S. and Woodward, S. (2014a) The potential ecological impact of ash dieback in the UK. JNCC Report 483. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Mitchell, R.J., Beaton, J.K., Bellamy, P.E., Broome, A., Chetcuti, J., Eaton, S., Ellis, C.J., Gimona, A., Harmer, R., Hester, A.J., Hewison, R.L., Hodgetts, N.G., Iason, G.R., Kerr, G., Littlewood, N.A., Newey, S., Potts, J.M., Pozsgai, G., Ray, D., Sim, D.A., Stockan, J.A., Taylor, A.F.S. and Woodward, S. (2014b) Ash dieback in the UK: a review of the ecological and conservation implications and potential management options. Biological Conservation 175: 95–109. Mitchell, R.J., Hewison, R.L., Britton, A.J., Brooker, R.W., Cummins, R.P., Fielding, D.A., Fisher, J.M., Gilbert, D.J., Hester, A.J., Hurskainen, S., Pakeman, R.J., Potts, J.M. and Riach, D. (2017) Forty years of change in Scottish grassland vegetation: increased richness, decreased diversity and increased dominance. Biological Conservation 212: 327–336. Moffat, A.J., Davies, S. and Finér, L. (2008) Reporting the results of forest monitoring – an evaluation of the European forest monitoring programme. Forestry 81: 75–90. Morecroft, M.D., Taylor, M.E., Ellwood, S.A. and Quinn, S.A. (2001) Impacts of deer herbivory on ground vegetation at Wytham Woods, central England. Forestry 74: 251–257. Morris., M.G. and Perring, F.H. (1974) The British Oak. Faringdon: Classey. Morton, D., Rowland, C., Wood, C., Meek, L., Marston, C., Smith, G., Wadsworth, R. and Simpson, I. (2011) Final Report for LCM2007 – the new UK land cover map. Countryside Survey Technical Report 11/07. Wallingford: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Mountford, E.P. and Peterken, G.F. (1998) Monitoring natural change in Monks Wood National Nature Reserve. English Nature Research Reports 270. Peterborough: English Nature.

References  | 127 Mountford, E.P. and Peterken, G.F. (2000) Natural developments at Scords Wood, Toy’s Hill, Kent, since the Great Storm of October 1987. English Nature Research Report 346. Peterborough: English Nature. Mountford, E.P. and Peterken, G.F. (2003) Long‐term change and implications for the management of wood‐pastures: experience over 40 years from Denny Wood, New Forest. Forestry 76: 19–43. Mountford, E.P., Peterken, G.F. and Burton, D. (1998) Long-term monitoring and management of Langley Wood: a minimum intervention National Nature Reserve. English Nature Research Report 302. Peterborough: English Nature. National Audit Office (1994) Protecting and Managing Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England. London: HMSO. Natural England (2012) Environmental Monitoring in Natural England 2012. Natural England Research Report. Peterborough: Natural England. Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) (1989) Guidelines for the Selection of Biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. Nelson, D.G. (2010) The Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (NWSS). Scottish Forestry, 64, 14–17. Newton, A. (2010) Biodiversity in the New Forest. Oxford: Pisces. Newton, A.C., Holden, E., Davy, L.M., Ward, S.D., Fleming, L.V. and Watling, R. (2002) Status and distribution of stipitate hydnoid fungi in Scottish coniferous forests. Biological Conservation 107: 181–192. Nimis, P.L., Scheidegger, C. and Wolseley, P.A. (2002) Monitoring with lichens – monitoring lichens: an introduction. In P.L. Nimis, C. Scheidegger and P. Wolseley (eds) Monitoring with Lichens – Monitoring Lichens. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 1–4. O’Halloran, J., Irwin, S., Kelly, D., Kelly, T., Mitchell, F., Coote, L., Oxbrough, A., Wilson, M., Martin, R. and Moore, K. (2011) Management of Biodiversity in a Range of Irish Forest Types. Dublin: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Available at: https:// www.ucc.ie/en/media/research/planforbio/pdfs/FORESTBIOFinalProjectReport.pdf. Accessed December 2017. Oliver, C.D. and Larson, B.C. (1996) Forest Stand Dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ozanne, C.M.P. (1999) A comparison of the canopy arthropod communities of coniferous and broad-leaved trees in the United Kingdom. Selbyana 20: 290–298. Ozanne, C.M.P. (2005) Techniques and methods for sampling canopy insects. In S.R. Leather (ed.) Insect Sampling in Forest Ecosystems. Oxford: Blackwell Science. pp. 146–167. Pedley, S.M., Martin, R.D., Oxbrough, A., Irwin, S., Kelly, T.C. and O’Halloran, J. (2014) Commercial spruce plantations support a limited canopy fauna: evidence from a multi taxa comparison of native and plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management 314: 172–182. Perrin, P.M., Kelly, D.L. and Mitchell, F.J.G. (2006) Long-term deer exclusion in yewwood and oakwood habitats in south-west Ireland: natural regeneration and stand dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management 236: 356–367.

128  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Peterken, G.F. (1974) A method for assessing woodland flora for conservation using indicator species. Biological Conservation 6: 239–245. Peterken, G.F. (1977) Habitat conservation priorities in British and European woodlands. Biological Conservation 11: 223–236. Peterken, G.F. (1979) The use of records in woodland ecology. Archives 14: 81–87. Peterken, G.F. (1981) Woodland Conservation and Management. London: Chapman and Hall. Peterken, G.F. (1993) Woodland Conservation and Management, 2nd edn. London: Chapman and Hall. Peterken, G.F. (1996) Natural Woodland: Ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peterken, G.F. (2000) Identifying ancient woodland using vascular plant indicators. British Wildlife 11: 153–158. Peterken, G.F. and Allison, H. (1989) Woods, trees and hedges: a review of changes in the British countryside. Focus on Nature Conservation 22. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. Peterken, G.F. and Backmeroff, C. (1988) Long-term monitoring in unmanaged nature reserves. Research and Survey in Nature Conservation 9. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. Peterken, G.F. and Francis, J.L. (1999) Open spaces as habitats for vascular ground flora species in the woods of central Lincolnshire, UK. Biological Conservation 91: 55–72. Peterken, G.F. and Jones, E.W. (1987) Forty years of change in Lady Park Wood: the oldgrowth stands. Journal of Ecology 75: 477–512. Peterken, G.F. and Jones, E.W. (1989) Forty years of change in Lady Park Wood: the young growth stands. Journal of Ecology 77: 401–429. Peterken, G.F. and Mountford, E.P. (2017) Woodland Development: A long-term study of Lady Park Wood. Wallingford: CABI. Peterken, G.F. and Stace, H. (1987) Stand development in the Black Wood of Rannock. Scottish Forestry 41: 29–44. Peterken, G.F. and Tubbs, C. (1965) Woodland regeneration in the New Forest, Hampshire, since 1650. Journal of Applied Ecology 2: 159–170. Peterken, G.F. and Welch, R.C. (1975) Bedford Purlieus: Its history, ecology and management. Huntingdon: National Environment Research Council/Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Peterken, G.F., Baldock, D. and Hampson, A. (1995) A forest habitat network for Scotland. SNH Research Report 29. Edinburgh: Scottish Natural Heritage. Petty, S.J., Garson, P.J. and McIntosh, R. (1995) Kielder – the ecology of a man-made spruce forest. Forest Ecology and Management 79: 1–160. Phelps, T. (2004) Population dynamics and spatial distribution of the adder Vipera berus in southern Dorset, England. Mertensiella 15: 241–258. Pigott, C.D. (1983) Regeneration of oak–birch woodland following exclusion of sheep. Journal of Ecology 71: 629–646.

References  | 129 Pitcairn, C.E.R., Skiba, U.M., Sutton, M.A., Fowler, D., Munro, R. and Kennedy, V. (2002) Defining the spatial impacts of poultry farm ammonia emissions on species composition of adjacent woodland groundflora using Ellenberg nitrogen index, nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emissions and foliar nitrogen as marker variables. Environmental Pollution 119: 9–21. Pitman, R., Vanguelova, E. and Benham, S. (2010) The effects of phytophagous insects on water and soil nutrient concentrations and fluxes through forest stands of the Level II monitoring network in the UK. Science of the Total Environment 409: 169–181. Pollard, E. and Yates, T.J. (1993) Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation. London: Chapman and Hall. Preston, C.D., Pearman, D.A. and Dines, T.D. (2002) New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Proctor, M.C.F., Spooner, G.M. and Spooner, M.F. (1980) Changes in Wistman’s Wood, Dartmoor: photographic and other evidence. Devon Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions 112: 43–79. Putman, R.J., Edwards, P.J., Mann, J.C.E., How, R.C. and Hill, S.D. (1989) Vegetational and faunal changes in an area of heavily grazed woodland following relief of grazing. Biological Conservation 47: 13–32. Putman, R., Watson, P. and Langbein, J. (2011) Assessing deer densities and impacts at the appropriate level for management: a review of methodologies for use beyond the site scale. Mammal Review 41: 197–219. Puttock, A.K., Cunliffe, A.M., Anderson, K. and Brazier, R.E. (2015) Aerial photography collected with a multi-rotor drone reveals impact of Eurasian beaver reintroduction on ecosystem structure. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 3: 123–130. Pyatt, D.G., Ray, D. and Fletcher, J. (2001) An ecological site classification for forestry in Great Britain. Forestry Commission Bulletin 124. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. Quine, C.P. (2015) The curious case of the even-aged plantation: wretched, funereal or misunderstood? In K.J. Kirby and C. Watkins (eds) Europe’s Changing Woods and Forests. Wallingford: CABI. pp. 207–223. Rackham, O. (1975) Hayley Wood. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Naturalists’ Trust. Rackham, O. (1989) The Last Forest: The story of Hatfield Forest. London: Dent. Rackham, O. (1990) Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape, rev. edn. London: Dent. (Original work published 1976) Rackham, O. (2003) Ancient Woodland: Its history, vegetation and uses in England, rev. edn. Dalbeattie: Castlepoint Press. (Original work published 1980) Ranius, T. (2006) Measuring the dispersal of saproxylic insects: a key characteristic for their conservation. Population Ecology 48: 177–188. Ranius, T. and Jansson, N. (2002) A comparison of three methods to survey saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 1759–1771. Ratcliffe, D.A. (1969) An ecological account of Atlantic bryophytes in the British Isles. New Phytologist 67: 365–439.

130  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Ratcliffe, D.A. (1977) A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read, H.J. (2000) Veteran Trees: A guide to good management. Peterborough: English Nature. Roberts, A.J., Russell, C., Walker, G.J. and Kirby, K.J. (1992) Regional variation in the origin, extent and composition of Scottish woodland. Botanical Journal of Scotland 46: 167–189. Roberts, N.J. (2011) Investigation into survey techniques of large mammals: surveyor competence and camera-trapping vs. transect-sampling. Bioscience Horizons 4: 40–49. Robertson, P.J. and Grieve, Y. (2010) NWSS field survey and QA procedure. Scottish Forestry 64: 10–14. Robbirt, K.M., Davy, A.J., Hutchings, M.J. and Roberts, D.L. (2011) Validation of biological collections as a source of phenological data for use in climate change studies: a case study with the orchid Ophrys sphegodes. Journal of Ecology 99: 235–241. Rodwell, J.S. (1991) British Plant Communities: 1. Woodlands and scrub. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodwell, J.S. and Dring, J. (2001) European significance of British woodland types. English Nature Research Report 460. Peterborough: English Nature. Rodwell, J.S., Dring, J., Averis, A., Proctor, M., Malloch, A., Schaminée, J. and Dargie, T. (2000) Review of coverage of the National Vegetation Classification. JNCC Report 302. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Rose, F. (1976) Lichenological indicators of age and environmental continuity in woodlands. In D.H. Braun, D.L. Hawksworth and R.H. Bailey (eds) Lichenology: Progress and problems. London: Academic Press. pp. 279–307. Rose, F. (1993) Ancient British woodlands and their epiphytes. British Wildlife 5: 83–93. Rose, F. (1999) Indicators of ancient woodland. British Wildlife 10: 241–251. Rose, F. and O’Reilly, C. (2006) The Wild Flower Key, rev. edn. London: Warne. (Original work published 1981) Rotheray, E., Bussiere, L., Moore, P., Bergstrom, L. and Goulson, D. (2014) Mark recapture estimates of dispersal ability and observations on the territorial behaviour of the rare hoverfly, Hammerschmidtia ferruginea (Diptera, Syrphidae). Journal of Insect Conservation 18: 179–188. Rotheray, G.E., Hancock, G., Hewitt, S., Horsfield, D., MacGowan, I., Robertson, D. and Watt, K. (2001) The biodiversity and conservation of saproxylic Diptera in Scotland. Journal of Insect Conservation 5: 77–85. Rotherham, I.D., Jones, M., Smith, L. and Handley, C. (eds) (2011) The Woodland Heritage Manual. Sheffield: Wildtrack Publishing. Rothero, G.P. (2005) Oceanic bryophytes in Atlantic oakwoods. Botanical Journal of Scotland 57: 135–140. Rowell, T.A. (1991) SSSIs: A health check; a review of statutory protection afforded to Sites of Special Scientific Interest. London: Wildlife Link. Rowell, T.A. (1993) Common Standards for Monitoring SSSIs. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

References  | 131 Sage, B.L. (1966) Northaw Great Wood, Its History and Natural History. Hertford: Hertfordshire County Council. Savill, P.S., Perrins, C., Kirby, K.J. and Fisher, N. (eds) (2010) Wytham Woods, Oxford’s Ecological Laboratory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Savory, C. (2016) Colonisation by woodland birds at Carrifran Wildwood: the story so far. Scottish Birds 36: 135–149. Schulze, I.-M., Bolte, A., Schmidt, W. and Eichhorn, J. (2009) Phytomass, litter and net primary production of herbaceous layer. Functioning and Management of European Beech Ecosystems. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 155–181. Shaw, H. and Tipping, R. (2006) Recent pine woodland dynamics in east Glen Affric, northern Scotland, from highly resolved palaeoecological analyses. Forestry 79: 331–340. Sibbett, N. (1999) Ancient tree survey of Staverton Parks and The Thicks SSSI, Suffolk. English Nature Research Report 334. Peterborough: English Nature. Smout, T.C. and Lambert, R.A. (1999) Rothiemurchus: Nature and people on a highland estate, 1500–2000. Dalkeith: Scottish Cultural Press. Smout, T.C., Macdonald, A.R. and Watson, F. (2005) A History of the Native Woodlands of Scotland 1500–1920. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Southwood, T.R.E. and Henderson, P.A. (2009) Ecological Methods, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Southwood, T.R.E., Brown, V.K. and Reader, P.M. (1979) The relationships of plant and insect diversities in succession. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 12: 327–348. Sparks, T.H. (2000) The long-term phenology of woodland species in Britain. In K.J. Kirby and M.D. Morecroft (eds) Long-term Studies in British Woodland (English Nature Science 34). Peterborough: English Nature. pp. 98–105. Sparks, T.H. and Carey, P.D. (1995) The responses of species to climate over two centuries: an analysis of the Marsham Phenological Record, 1736–1947. Journal of Ecology 83: 321–329. Sparks, T.H. and Crick, H. (2015) The impact of climate change on biological phenology in the UK. Biodiversity Climate Change Impacts Report Card Technical Paper 12. London: Defra/Living with Environmental Change. Sparks, T.H., Atkinson, S. and Lewthwaite, K. (2016) The spread of spring 2015: results from Nature’s Calendar. British Wildlife 27: 265–268. Spencer, J.W. and Kirby, K.J. (1992) An inventory of ancient woodland for England and Wales Biological Conservation 62: 77–93. Stamp, L.D. (1948) The Land of Britain – Its Use and Misuse. London: Longman. Steele, R.C. and Welch, R.C. (1973) Monks Wood: A nature reserve record. Cambridge: Nature Conservancy/Natural Environment Research Council. Steven, H.M. and Carlisle, A. (1959) The Native Pinewoods of Scotland. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

132  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Stone, J., Dolman, P. and Fuller, R. (2004) Impacts of deer grazing on regenerating coppice stools and ground flora: an exclosure study in Bradfield Woods, England. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 98: 257–262. Strachan, I.M. (2017) Manual of terrestrial EUNIS habitats in Scotland – version 2. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report 766. Edinburgh: Scottish Natural Heritage. Summers, R.W. (2007) Stand selection by birds in Scots pinewoods in Scotland: the need for more old‐growth pinewood. Ibis 149: 175–182. Sykes, J.M. and Horrill, A.D. (1979) Survey methods within woodlands. ITE Contract Research Report. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. Sykes, J.M., Horrill, A.M. and Mountford, M.D. (1983) Use Of visual cover assessments as quantitative estimators of some British woodland taxa. Journal of Ecology 71: 437–450. Tansley, A.G. (1939) The British Islands and Their Vegetation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, R., Peace, A. and Poulsom, E. (2004) A judgement-based method to identify overgrazing in English upland native woodland. English Nature Research Report 621. Peterborough: English Nature. Tichy, L. (not dated) GLAMA – Gap light analysis mobile app: user’s manual v.3.0. Brno: Department of Botany and Zoology, Masaryk University. Tidswell, R. (1990) A Test Study on Primary Woodland Indicator Plants in Angus District. Edinburgh: Nature Conservancy Council. Tittensor, R. (2002) Report on the vegetation of The Mens woodland reserve, West Sussex. English Nature Research Report 444. Peterborough: English Nature. Tsen, E.W., Sitzia, T. and Webber, B.L. (2016) To core, or not to core: the impact of coring on tree health and a best‐practice framework for collecting dendrochronological information from living trees. Biological Reviews 91: 899–924. Tubbs, C.R. (1986) The New Forest: A natural history. London: Collins. Van der Linde, S., Alexander, I.J. and Anderson, I.C. (2009) Spatial distribution of sporocarps of stipitate hydnoid fungi and their belowground mycelium. FEMS Microbiological Ecology 69: 344–352. Vera, F.W.M. (2000) Grazing Ecology and Forest History. Wallingford: CABI. Verheyen, K., Baeten, L., De Frenne, P., Bernhard-Romermann, M., Brunet, J., Cornelis, J., Decoq, G., Dierschke, H., Eriksson, O., Hedl, R., Heinken, T., Hermy, M., Hommel, P., Kirby, K.J., Naaf, T., Peterken, G.F., Petrik, P., Pfadenhauer, J., Van Calster, H., Walther, G.-R., Wulf, M. and Verstraeten, G. (2012) Driving factors behind the eutrophication signal in understorey plant communities of deciduous temperate forests. Journal of Ecology 100: 352–365. Warr, S.J., Kent, M. and Thompson, K. (1994) Seed bank composition and variability in five woodlands in south-west England. Journal of Biogeography 21: 151–168. Warren, M.S. and Fuller, R.J. (1993) Woodland Rides and Glades: Their management for wildlife. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

References  | 133 Watkins, C. (1984) The use of Forestry Commission censuses for the study of woodland change. Journal of Historical Geography 10: 396–406. Watkins, C. (1990) Woodland Management and Conservation. Newton Abbott: David and Charles. Watkins, C., Lavers, C. and Howard, R. (2004) The use of dendrochronology to evaluate dead wood habitats and management priorities for the ancient oaks of Sherwood Forest. In O. Honnay, K. Verheyen, B. Bossuyt and M. Hermy (eds) Forest Biodiversity: Lessons from history for conservation. Wallingford: CABI. pp. 247–267. Watts, K., Humphrey, J.W., Griffiths, M., Quine, C.P. and Ray, D. (2005) Evaluating biodiversity in fragmented landscapes: principles. Information Note 73. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. Watts, K., Ray, D., Quine, C.P., Humphrey, J.W. and Griffiths, M. (2007) Evaluating biodiversity in fragmented landscapes:applications of landscape ecology tools. Information Note 85. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. Watts, K., Fuentes-Montemayor, E., Macgregor, N.A., Peredo-Alvarez, V., Ferryman, M., Bellamy, C., Brown, N. and Park, K.J. (2016) Using historical woodland creation to construct a long-term, large-scale natural experiment: the WrEN project. Ecology and Evolution 6: 3012–3025. Webb, J.R. and Lott, D.A. (2006) The development of ISIS: a habitat-based invertebrate assemblage classification system for assessing conservation interest in England. Journal of Insect Conservation 10: 179–188. Welch, R. and Greatorex-Davies, J. (1993) Colonization of two Nothofagus species by Lepidoptera in southern Britain. Forestry 66: 181–203. Westwood, B., Shirley, P., Winnall, R. and Green, H. (2015) The Nature of Wyre. Newbury: Pisces Publications. Whitbread, A.M. (1991) Research on the ecological effects on woodland of the 1987 storm. Research and Survey in Nature Conservation 40. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. White, J. (1998) Estimating the age of large and veteran trees in Britain. Forestry Commission Information Note. Farnham: Forestry Commission. Whitehouse, N.J. and Smith, D. (2010) How fragmented was the British Holocene wildwood? Perspectives on the ‘Vera’ grazing debate from the fossil beetle record. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 539–553. Williams, D.T., Straw, N., Townsend, M., Wilkinson, A.S. and Mullins, A. (2013) Monitoring oak processionary moth Thaumetopoea processionea L. using pheromone traps: the influence of pheromone lure source, trap design and height above the ground on capture rates. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 15: 126–134. Williams, J.M.E. (2006) Common Standards for Monitoring Designated Sites: First six year report. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Wilson, B., Moffat, A. and Nortcliff, S. (1990) The nature of soils under ancient woodland in southern England. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 84: 173–180.

134  |  Woodland Survey Handbook Wood, C.M., Smart, S.M., Bunce, R.G., Norton, L.R., Maskell, L.C., Howard, D.C., Scott, W.A. and Henrys, P.A. (2017) Long-term vegetation monitoring in Great Britain – the Countryside Survey 1978–2007 and beyond. Earth System Science Data 9: 445–459. Woodcock, B.A. (2005) Pitfall trapping in ecological studies. In S.R.E. Leather (ed.) Insect Sampling in Forest Ecosystems. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp35-57. Woodcock, B.A., Watt, A.D. and Leather, S.R.E (2003) Influence of management type on Diptera communities of coniferous plantations and deciduous woodlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95: 443–452. Woodruffe-Peacock, E.A. (1918) A fox-covert study. Journal of Ecology 6: 110–125. Wormell, P. and Wormell, C. (2003) Pinewoods of the Black Mount. Skipton: Dalesman Publishing. Zeide, B. (2001) Thinning and growth: a full turnaround. Journal of Forestry 99: 20–25.

Index Page numbers in bold refer to figures, tables and boxes. 1947 Forestry Census records 9–10, 9 accuracy 5–6 age of trees 64–65, 64, 65; see also veteran trees Air Pollution Information System 14 Alice Holt Forest (Hants) 92 amphibian surveys 81–82, 82 Ancient Tree Hunt 14, 69 ancient trees 38; see also veteran trees ancient woodland 13, 14, 31–32, 31, 92 archaeology, woodland 70, 71–73, 74 Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) 94 bat surveys 77, 78 biodiversity, defining 2 Biological Flora of the British Isles 32 biomass surveys 76 bird surveys 79–81, 80 Bradfield Woods (Suffolk) 80, 81 Bredon Hill (Worcs) 89 Breeding Bird Surveys 79, 81 British Bryological Society 82–83 British Lichen Society 83–84 British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) 79, 81 browsing/grazing evidence 47, 70, 78 bryophyte surveys 22, 53, 82–83, 83 Buglife 88 butterfly surveys 88–89 canopy/overstorey 35, 36, 38, 62–63, 62 carbon sequestration 76 Carrifran (Borders) 91

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 1, 52, 61–62, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85 climate change 15 connectivity, landscape 16–17, 16 conservation designations 13 Convention on Biological Diversity 2 coppice regrowth 35, 38, 46 core-taking 65 CORINE 61 Countryside Survey 10, 23 cover abundance assessment 53–54, 54, 55 DAFOR scale 28, 30 data, curating 5 data-loggers 23, 31 dead-wood surveys 40, 43, 65, 67–68, 67 deer 6, 14, 61, 78 Deer Initiative 14, 78 dendrochronology 65 detailed surveys biomass and energy-flow 76 dead wood 65, 67–68, 67 grazing/browsing 70 quadrat recording see quadrat recording soils 74, 75, 76 veteran trees 68, 69–70 woodland archaeology 70, 71–73, 74 woodland classification see woodland classification woodland structure see woodland structure surveys

136  |  Woodland Survey Handbook digital backdrops 10 diseases 14, 91 Domin scale 53, 54 drones 65, 66 duration of surveys 4 Ecoflora database 32 Ellenberg approach 32–33, 32 energy-flow surveys 76 Environment Agency 10 Environmental Change Network 15, 92 environmental DNA (eDNA) 82, 89, 90 European Environment Agency 61 European Nature Information System (EUNIS) habitat classification 61 examples of published surveys 4 field notes 50, 51 Forestry Commission 8, 14, 15, 81, 82, 92, 94; see also National Forest Inventory (NFI) Forestry Commission Scotland 8, 20, 61, 70, 74; see also Native Woodland Survey of Scotland fungi surveys 90 Gait Barrows NNR (Lancs) 91 game management 49 Gamlingay Wood (Cambs) 12 Geographic Information Systems (GISs) 16, 22, 62 geographical precision 27 glades 40, 41, 85 Global Positioning System (GPS) tagging 23, 57, 96 grazing/browsing evidence 47, 70, 78 great crested newts 81, 82 Habitats Directive (EU) 13, 61, 95, 134 Hayley Wood (Cambs) 4, 65 herbivory, evidence of 47, 70, 78 historical data, maps and photographs 6–7, 9–10, 9, 11, 12, 13–14, 14, 20, 79; see also long-term surveillance humidity 82, 83, 84

Invertebrate Survey Information System (ISIS) 89, 89 invertebrate surveys citizen science surveys 88 results, interpreting 89–90, 89 specific surrogate habitat measures 88 survey methods 85, 86–87, 88, 89 tree species 84–85 woodland structure 85 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) 1, 10, 13, 18, 59, 61, 81, 88, 93, 95 Journal of Ecology 12, 32 Lady Park Wood study (Wye Valley) 4, 95–96, 97 Land Utilisation Surveys 10 landscape character assessments 11–12 landscape-scale change 92–93 landscape-scale surveys ancient woodland inventories 13, 14 collation and analysis 16–17, 16 conservation designations 13 description 3 historical accounts/papers 12 landscape character assessments 11–12 national soil maps 74 overall woodland resource 8–10, 9 pressures and threats 14–15 relationship to other survey levels 3 spatial and temporal contexts 10–11, 11 species distributions 13–14, 15 land-use information 10, 50, 92 levels/phases of survey 3–4, 3 lichen surveys 83–84 lidar images 10, 33, 65, 66, 74 Living Ash project 14 long-term surveillance landscape-scale change 92–93 permanent plot studies 95–97 purposes 91–92 site condition monitoring 93–95, 93 woodland approach 94 maiden stems 34, 35, 36, 47

Index  | 137 Making Space for Nature report 16 mammal surveys 77–79, 78 management, site 45, 46–50, 50 maps ancient woodland 13 forest inventories 8 habitat 10–11, 61, 92 historic 10, 11, 12 lidar 10 Ordnance Survey 8, 10 site maps 22 soil maps 74 tree maps 14 vegetation maps 44–45, 45, 59 Met Office 15 metadata 5, 96, 97 microhabitats 20, 77, 80, 85 Moccas Park NNR (Herefordshire) 85 Monks Wood (Cambs) 4, 40, 44, 90 National Amphibian & Reptile Recording Scheme (NARRS) 82 National Archives (Kew) 9–10 National Biodiversity Network (NBN) 5, 13, 20, 79, 83 National Collection of Aerial Photography 10 National Forest Inventory (NFI) 8, 23, 39, 51, 62, 70, 95 National Forest, the (Midlands) 91 National Nature Reserves 13, 92 National Plant Monitoring Scheme 92 National Tree Map 14 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) 44–45, 45, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 74, 94, 125–133 Native Woodland Survey of Scotland 39, 61, 68, 70, 94–95 Natural England 13, 15, 89, 92 Natural Resources Wales 12, 13, 16 Nature Conservation Review criteria 19, 58 Nature’s Calendar 15 Navestock Old Park (Essex) 11 New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al.) 13 New Biggins Wood (Kent) 96

ObservaTree 14 open spaces 40, 40, 41 Ordnance Survey maps 8, 10 ornamental plantings 49 overall woodland resource 8–10, 9 overstorey/main canopy 34, 35, 36, 38, 62–63, 62 palaeoecological studies 12 past woodland cover 9–10, 9 permanent plot studies 95–97 permission to access land 21 pests and diseases 14 phoenix trees 37, 38 photographs as complement to target notes 23–27 digital 23 drones, use of 65, 66 GPS tagging 23 importance 22–23 lidar images 33, 65, 66 permanent plot studies 96 satellite/aerial 10, 11, 22, 22, 33, 51 site management 46–50 subsidiary habitats 39, 41–43 woodland archaeology 71–72 woodland structure 33, 35–37 pollards 37, 38, 46 pollution 14, 82, 83, 84 precision, geographical 27 pressures and threats 14–15, 15; see also browsing/grazing evidence Pro Natura 85, 88 purposes of surveys 3–4 QGIS 16 quadrat recording cover abundance assessment 53–55, 54, 55 defining and use 53 distribution 56–57 laying out plots 53 size 55–56, 55, 56 quality-control checks 21, 30 questions for surveys to answer 3 recording cards 31, 40, 83, 120–123

138  |  Woodland Survey Handbook regeneration, forms of 38–39 reliability 5–6 reports, writing 1, 50–52 reptile and amphibian surveys 81–82, 82 restoration projects 92 rides 39, 40 rock features 40, 42 route planning and mapping 22–23, 22 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 92 saplings 39 Scords Wood (Kent) 96 Scotland Forest Inventory 8 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 57, 63, 78, 88 Scottish Woodland History Group 74 seedlings 38, 39 shrub layer/understorey 35, 36, 38–39, 62 singled trees 34 site condition monitoring 93–95, 93 site surveys see detailed surveys; walkabout (site) surveys, basic Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) 13, 16, 18, 58, 93, 93, 94 size of trees 63, 64 soil surveys 74, 75, 76 spatial context 10–11, 11 species distribution information 13–14, 15 species lists 31–33, 31, 32, 33 stand groups 58, 59, 124 standard trees 34, 35 standardisation 5 Statistical Accounts for Scotland 10, 12 stocking 63 subsidiary habitats 39, 40, 40, 41–43 suckers 39 Sylva Foundation 23 tablets, digitising 23 temporal comparisons 6–7, 6, 7 temporal context 10–11, 11 threats 14–15, 15, 91 timber production 48 ‘toughbooks’ 23, 51 training, surveyor 21, 30

UK Biodiversity Action Plan 61 UK Habitat Classification 61–62 understorey/shrub layer 35, 36, 38–39, 62–63 ‘unplanned surveys’ 6–7, 6, 7 validity and reliability 5–6 variation, data 6 vascular plants, focus on 19–20 vascular plants, recording DAFOR scale 28, 30 Ellenberg approach 32, 32 factors affecting plants seen 28, 28, 29–30 functional attribute analysis 32, 33 inconsistencies in species recorded 30–31 species abundance 28 species lists, using 31–33, 31, 32, 33 species most affected by survey variables 29–30 vegetation maps 44–45, 45, 59 veteran trees 14, 34, 37, 38, 65, 68, 69–70, 80, 83, 91 Victoria County History 12 walkabout (site) surveys, basic completed record card, example of 120–123 criteria 18, 19 description 3–4 field notes 50, 51 initial write-up 50–52, 51 outputs 21–22 past surveys 20 permission to access land 21 photographs to complement notes 23–27 precision, geographical 27 quality-control checks 21 recording survey results 23 relationship to other survey levels 3 route planning and mapping 22–23, 22 site management 45, 46–50, 50 subsidiary habitats 39, 40, 40, 41–43 surrounding land 44, 44 training 21

Index  | 139 vascular plants, focus on 19–20 vascular plants, recording see vascular plants, recording vegetation maps 44–45, 45 woodland structure, describing 33, 34, 35–37, 38 working in pairs 21 walkabout (site) surveys, detailed see detailed surveys water bodies 40, 42 weather 50 wet ground 40, 41 Wildlife Trusts 20, 93 Wistman’s Wood (Devon) 7 within-site surveys 3, 4; see also detailed surveys woodland classification CORINE 61 EUNIS 61 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) 59, 60, 61 other classifications and interrelationships 61–62 purposes 57–58

soil characteristics 74 stand groups 58, 59 systems for British woods 58, 59 UK Habitat Classification 61–62, 134 Woodland Creation & Ecological Networks (WReN) project 16 woodland distribution patterns 8, 9, 13–14, 14 woodland specialists vs. woodland generalists 32 woodland structure, describing 33, 34, 35–37, 38–39 woodland structure surveys age of trees 64–65, 64, 65 canopy/understorey cover 62–63, 62 NFI description 62 size of trees 63, 64 stocking 63, 63 Woodland Trust 15, 91, 92 Wytham Woods study (Oxon) 6–7, 28, 44, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 78, 81, 87, 92, 95 young trees 38, 48