Woodland Management

Dilemmas

***

complex habitat, fussy birds

100 m

Monks Wood

Bevill’s

Wood

N

● Woodland complexity

● Example of resources and climate effects

● Nestboxes

● Airborne remote sensing

● Canopy height and bird communities

► Willow Tit, Nightingale, Marsh Tit, Wood Warbler

● Scrub and habitat types within woodland

● Bird-habitat relationships

● The BIG decision and broad management options

Outline

Oak-Hickory forest, Georgia (Monk et al. 1970)

► Tree leaf upper surface area: 235 m2

Sessile Oak woodland, 40-120 yrs old, NW England

(Carlisle et al. 1966)

► 22 – 23 million leaves per hectare of wood

► Dry weight: 2,202 – 2,476 kg (about 2 to 2.5 tons)

► Upper surface area: 5.5 m2 per m2 of ground

Photographs: Nick Greatorex-Davis, Reg Fry, Jeff Higgott

R.K. Broughton

Blue Tit 2001

5 7 9 11 13 15 17 199.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

Mean canopy height, m

Mean c

hic

k b

ody m

ass,

g

R2 = 0.61

P = 0.014

N = 8

Hinsley et al. 2002

Funct. Ecol. 16: 851-857

Blue Tit 2001

5 7 9 11 13 15 17 199.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

Mean canopy height, m

Mean c

hic

k b

ody m

ass,

g

Great Tit 2001

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1816

17

18

19

20

Mean canopy height, m

Mean c

hic

k body m

ass

, g

R2 = 0.80

P < 0.001

N = 11

1998

5 7 9 11 13 15 1715

16

17

18

19

20

21

C

Height, m

Mass

, g

2001

5 7 9 11 13 15 1715

16

17

18

19

20

21

AM

ass,

g

2000

5 7 9 11 13 15 1715

16

17

18

19

20

21

B

Mass,

g

1998

5 7 9 11 13 15 1715

16

17

18

19

20

21

C

Height, m

Mass

, g

1999

5 7 9 11 13 15 1715

16

17

18

19

20

21

D

2002

5 7 9 11 13 15 1715

16

17

18

19

20

21

E

1997

5 7 9 11 13 15 1715

16

17

18

19

20

21

F

Height, m

Great Tit

body mass/

canopy height

relationships

1997 - 2002

Hinsley et al. 2006. Photo. Eng.

Remote Sense 72: 1399-1406

759

661 709

648

568

750

Canopy height profile

A.G. Gosler

A.G.Gosler

National population trends (data: BTO web site)

R.K. Broughton

MONKS WOOD

TIM

E (

nanose

c)

0

50

100

PULSE INTENSITY

FIRST RETURN

(top of canopy)

LAST RETURN

(ground)

Near infrared

laser pulse

Schematic ALS return pulse waveform

Ross Hill

Paul Frost

100 m

Monks Wood

Bevill’s

Wood

N

00 - 01

18 - 20

16 - 18

14 - 16

12 - 14

10 - 12

08 - 10

06 - 08

04 - 06

01 - 04

20 - 23

Tree height (m )

100 m

N

Monks Wood

Data acquired by EA

Wytham Woods

30

Data acquired by NERC ARSF

R.K. Broughton

R.K.Broughton

Data acquired by NERC ARSF

x 30 m

Bradfield Woods, Suffolk

Sheephouse Wood, Bucks

Data acquired by NERC ARSF

70 ha

59 ha

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1678

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

D

LT

CBC

GW

BF WRCH

BG

ST

J RSDBTGTMT

GCGS

TCCTNH

Mean canopy height, m

Mean c

anopy c

ove

r, %

a) Sheephouse Wood

R2 = 0.95

P < 0.001

n = 23

5 6 7 8 9 1086

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

GW

D

WW

N

GC

TC

CT

J

MT

GT

BTR

SDBF

G

GS

ST

CHB

WRLTBC

C

Mean canopy height, m

Mean c

anopy c

ove

r, %

a) Bradfield Woods

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1678

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

D

LT

CBC

GW

BF WRCH

BG

ST

J RSDBTGTMT

GCGS

TCCTNH

Mean canopy height, m

Mean c

anopy c

ove

r, %

a) Sheephouse Wood

R2 = 0.21

P = 0.028

n = 23

b)

00 - 01

18 - 20

16 - 18

14 - 16

12 - 14

10 - 12

08 - 10

06 - 08

04 - 06

01 - 04

20 - 23

Tree height (m )

100 m

N

Dunnock 20 1 1

Chaffinch 18 7 15

Whitethroat 17 1 0

Willow Warbler 15 0 0

Blackbird 12 4 5

Blue Tit 10 23 33

Wren 9 4 7

Blackcap 6 5 6

Garden Warbler 5 1 0

Song Thrush 4 0 1

Lesser Whitethroat 3 0 0

Chiffchaff 2 2 4

Robin 2 9 10

Great Tit 1 10 21

Treecreeper 0 2 4

Scrub Young Mature

Bird communities and woodland age

Photos: Pete Stronach

Data: BTO

web site

Willow Tit

Nightingales: micro-habitat structures

in scrub and coppice

- dense thicket foliage

- canopy cover

- sparse ground cover

Fuller & Henderson 1992 Bird Study

Fuller, Henderson & Wilson 1999 British

Wildlife

Wilson, Fuller, Day & Smith 2005 Ibis

Source: Rob Fuller, BTO

Mature woodland

Marsh Tit

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Shrub

density

Canopy

density

Occupied

Unoccupied

Occupied, n = 10

Unoccupied, n = 6

Shrub density index

t = 5.93, P < 0.001

Tree canopy density index

t = 4.48, P = 0.002

Wytham Woods

Broughton et al. 2006, Ibis 148: 744-752; Hinsley et al. 2007, Ibis 149: 224-233 Data & photos: J. Carpenter

Yarner Wood, Devon

New Forest

Source: Rob Fuller, BTO

Wood Warbler photo:

Jez Blackburn, BTO

Wood Warbler

Scrub

Edges

Use of dead/live trees and dead wood on live trees by woodpeckers

(Smith, 2007, Proceedings of the BOU Woodland Birds Conference, Leicester 2006)

Nest sites, %

Live tree 52 6 86

Dead tree 34 50 8

Dead wood, live tree 14 44 6

Foraging locations, %

Live tree 95 99

Live wood, live tree 48 87

Dead wood, live tree 52 13

Great spot. Lesser spot. Green

Number of habitats 5.2 (2.0) 3.1 (0.9) 0.013

Shrub density 2.6 (0.5) 1.9 (0.5) 0.006

Number of hedges 2.4 (2.0) 0.6 (0.9) 0.022

Number of tracks 2.4 (0.8) 1.3 (1.0) 0.025

Total connections 4.5 (1.7) 3.0 (1.2) 0.042

Species-rich Species-poor P

Habitat diversity effects

Willow Warbler 5.6 3

Great Tit 4.6 3

Blackcap 4.2 2

Blue Tit 2.7 2

Wren 2.4 3

Robin 2.4 2

Dunnock 2.3 3

Chaffinch 1.9 1

Blackbird 1.8 3

Average ratio,

Rich:Poor

Significance,

years out of 3

(Hinsley et al. 1998. Proceedings IALE European Congress, pp. 227-232)

The BIG decision: What do you want?

Main factors to consider: ► Area/shape of the wood

(pre-welly, spade ► Location in the landscape

and chainsaw)

► Characteristics of the landscape

► New planting or existing wood

► Resources – money, machinery, manpower etc.

► Time

► Pest control/exclusion

► Human access and use

Priorities

New Scientist

Options

1. Maximise habitat diversity

► Varied canopy height profile and canopy cover

► Varied shrub density

► Glades, wide sunny rides, smaller paths

► Bushy edges, internal and external

► Ponds

► Dead wood – standing, fallen, log piles, brash

► Exploit existing features, e.g. rock outcrops, streams,

bogs, meadows etc. (derelict buildings)

Options

1. Maximise habitat diversity

2. Target particular species or suites of species

► Willow Tit

► Nightingale

► Spotted Flycatcher

► Redstart, Wood Warbler, Pied Flycatcher

Options

1. Maximise habitat diversity

2. Target particular species

3. Non-intervention

► Leave it to look after itself

Options

1. Maximise habitat diversity

2. Target particular species

3. Non-intervention

4. Minimal intervention (tweaking)

► Thin out dense, closed canopy

► Create some glades/wide sunny rides

► Clear away collapsed, dank thickets to

encourage natural regeneration

► Add/encourage bushy edges

Floristics

Hewson et al. 2011. Forest Ecology and Management 261: 1224-1240.

Broad options

1. Native species rather than exotics

2. Match species to their location – see what is doing well locally

3. Local provenance

4. Have some conifers – adds diversity

5. Consider seed, fruit and invertebrate value

6. Consider shade characteristics

Shade

Blakesley, D. & Buckley, G.P. 2010. Woodland creation for wildlife and

people in a changing climate: principles and practice. Pisces Publications, Newbury.

Symes, N. & Currie, F. 2005. Woodland management for birds: a guide to managing

for declining woodland birds in England. The RSPB, Sandy and the Forestry

Commission England, Cambridge.

Smith et al. 2007. Woodland Birds: their ecology and management. Proceedings

of the BOU's 2006 annual spring conference published as a free-to-view online only

supplement of Ibis. http://bouproc.blogspot.com/2008/08/full-proceedings-online.html

Fuller, R.J. 1995. Bird life of woodland and forest. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Savill, P.S., Perrins, C.M., Kirby, K.J. & Fisher, N. 2010. Wytham Woods Oxford’s

Ecological Laboratory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ryabitsev, V. 1998. One season in the Taiga. Russian Nature Press, Edinburgh.

(More than 2 million possibilities are available)

500 550 600 650 700 750 800-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

Warmth sum

Slo

pe

500 550 600 650 700 750 800-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

-0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Warmth sum

Corr

ela

tion c

oeff

icie

nt, r

T.H Sparks Oak phenology