Biodiversity implications of coppice decline, transformations to high forest and coppice restoration in British woodland

Abstract

Coppice systems are amongst the earliest forms of woodland management known and on some sites their use has been documented for centuries. Distinctive assemblages of plants and animals are associated with such systems and are highly valued in nature conservation terms. The richness of such assemblages, and conversely, the species that do not thrive under coppice, are linked to the alternation of relatively short light and dark phases and the juxtaposition of stands at different stages in the coppice cycle. We review how and why the biodiversity of former coppice woods changes in response to abandonment and conversion to high forest. We focus on the situation in the UK, based on recent published literature searches and the authors' extensive experiences of the practical issues involved in the conservation of coppice woodland systems. Vascular plants in the ground flora, invertebrates of open glades and scrub, and small birds of the understorey may have become more abundant in coppice than they would have been under 'natural' forest conditions. By contrast epiphytes dependent on mature trees and species of largesized deadwood are less favoured by coppice management. Coppice systems developed to meet the local community needs. As social and economic conditions changed, so coppicing declined and the woods were transformed into high forest through neglect or deliberate management. High forests differ from coppice stands in their spatial and temporal dynamics and consequently in their wildlife particularly with respect to their vertical structure pattern; extent of open space and young growth; spatial heterogeneity; tree and shrub composition; and browsing levels. Three issues for the conservation of biodiversity arise from these changes: 2  what priority and resources should be given to halting further decline, by maintaining coppice compared to allowing sites to develop with more 'natural' high forest structures and dynamics; will associated high-forest species recolonise?  if we restore coppice systems, will the species assemblages present in the past also recover, under current and future changes in environmental conditions; i.e is the transformation reversible under current environmental conditions?  are there other ways in which 'coppice-associated' species might be maintained? We identify research gaps and proposals to address these issues.

Climate, landscape, habitat, and woodland management associations with hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius population status

“…The habitats we found to be associated with favourable indices of dormouse populations have declined markedly in Europe over the last century (Hopkins & Kirby , Kirby et al. ). At the same time, habitats associated with reduced dormouse abundance and breeding, including fragmented woodland, conifer plantation, sycamore, and high broadleaf forest, have markedly increased (Young et al.…”

“…, Miklín & Cˇížek , Kirby et al. ). This has resulted in a predominance of two broad woodland types: intensively managed commercial conifer plantations and mature, broadleaf high‐forest (Paillet et al.…”

“…, Kirby et al. ) by providing important habitats for a range of key taxa such as butterflies and moths (Broome et al. , Fartmann et al.…”

Solid Biomass from Forest Trees to Energy: A Review

“…Forests are the terrestrial ecosystems that produce and store the most biomass, which explains why biomass for energy has been derived mainly from forests for a long time [8,13,14,93,94]. The forest biomass varies according to site, stand structure, topography, climate, management system, and disturbances [91,95,96].…”

“…Several terms have been used to describe the forest systems whose main, and frequently the only, production is biomass for energy [94,101,102] and that are characterized by specific spatial and temporal features [93,99]. The most important features of these systems, when compared with agricultural crops or other forest systems, are their low risks, high economic viability, harvest flexibility, availability worldwide, biodiversity enhancement (especially if incorporated in agricultural crops portfolio), and the possibility of use for phytoremediation purposes [97,100,[103][104][105][106][107].…”