Why I Criticised The Use of Forestry Techniques In This Wood скачать в хорошем качестве

Why I Criticised The Use of Forestry Techniques In This Wood

Managing woodland biodiversity and heritage is too important to just use a limited range of methods and techniques regardless of what woodland you have on a site and regardless of it's history. This video contains criticism of work on this site:    • A Criticism of the Woodland Trust   This video explains in 12 minutes how this site (a plantationised Ancient Woodland Site, PAWS) encapsulates 900 years of history    • A Plantationised Ancient Woodland Site (PA...   The video you are watching explains how (and why) this site could perhaps be managed a little differently by tailoring management to the site rather than treat it as a generic woodland. How to reduce compaction damage. How to easily increase biodiversity value in parallel with managing the public safety implications of ash dieback disease. How to gather data and why we should. Why we should support local small scale management interventions by local woodland businesses as those interventions increase biodiversity and help make intervention self supporting. We also start to look at why bodies like the Woodland Trust, National Trust, Wildlife Trusts and Forestry England should begin to rebuild the infrastructure to support coppicing rather than relying on only 'market forces' to dictate the use of forestry machinery and techniques as a 'lowest common denominator' recipe for woodland management. That's a lot of concepts for a 20 minute video shot all on one site on no budget. Brash mats? That's where you lay cut small diameter material cross-wise to a planned extraction route to spread the load imposed by the wheels so it won't sink in. The mat has to be thick. Your harvester or forwarder stays on there. You can make them with (as here) the trees or underwood felled along the route. Handballing the material is required, but if you fell intelligently you can minimise the effort needed. Now fell trees to the side so the brash goes straight on the mat as it is removed. Leave 'em tree length (tight-snedded) so the machine can pick them up and either move them rideside for sectioning or (harvester) pull in and section. This increases the 'reach' of the machine beyond the reach of the boom but requires saw operators with real skill and the job needs more planning. After extraction, you leave the brash mats in place. You have concentrated a dead wood resource whilst leaving adjacent areas of woodland floor 'clean' of dense material, free of compaction damage and open for ground flora (so long as you tackle deer browsing). If you have sensible deer densities, in 2 years you will be hard-pressed to see your brash mats for the regrowth and natural regeneration, which will happen through the mats. Planting through the mats the same winter as felling is a s*d. But you don't need to do it. Planting, like using a harvester is often assumed to be 'best', but is it really? In 4 years the mats will be mostly gone, but meantime you may have recorded a spike in greater and lesser stag beetle numbers if you are in stag beetle range. If you fell to ground level, the stools will re-grow, even if they are within a brash mat. Yes, I've done it for real for money on London clay sites where without mats the machine would be down to its belly. You have sacrificed 'uncommercial' material, but you have used it for a purpose. Here the hazel has just been treated as 'trash' - stools destroyed because they are 'in the way' - picked up and moved, they will never re-grow. And these stools may be the oldest extant trees in this wood. This rankles with me, I'm afraid . Please leave comments if you wish. This 'channel' is about information and discussion.