There was a substantial woodland shown in green on the 1927 O.S. map at
Keasden and on later maps it was known a Hawksheath Plantation. The accompanying
photograph was taken in the late 1940s and the trees were felled about 1953.
Why Grow Trees not Cabbages
There are a number of reasons: scientific, environmental and aesthetic.
Firstly (and briefly) lets consider the science. All vegetation contains
carbon and plants extract carbon from the atmosphere which contains a
very low percentage of carbon dioxide (CO2). The concentration of CO2
is 0.036% with oxygen around 21% and nitrogen 78%. The CO2 is extracted
from the atmosphere by plants and combined with water in the process known
as photosynthesis to form sugars from which the plant structure is formed.
Recently the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been rising due presumably
to burning stores of carbon contained in fossil fuels such as coal and
oil, and also large areas of equatorial afforestation have been burned.
Now why is this bad? Well CO2 is a heavy gas — much heavier than either
oxygen or nitrogen — and so it hangs around the earth's surface. But more
importantly it acts as a gigantic duvet and stops the natural radiation
of infra red energy from the earth into space. So when the CO2 rises the
average temperature of earth's surface rises — the so-called "greenhouse
effect". When the earth gets hotter the ice caps melt more quickly and
the sea level rises; bad news for Bangladesh and the Netherlands! But
why trees and not cabbages I can hear you ask? Well, its true that for
a given area in a given time cabbages (or wheat or any other crop including
grass) will lock up more carbon than trees. But within a year all the
carbon is released from the cabbages in the form of CO2 because they will
have been eaten digested and metabolised by animals. No, the only way
to lock carbon up for a long time is to incorporate it in trees which
have a long life in themselves as well as in the structural timber derived
from them. Next let's consider the environmental benefits of growing trees.
There is more of a contrary argument here because land used for tree growing
will lose some of the grassland flora and fauna especially if wet areas
are drained. For example mosses, cotton grasses and reeds will be reduced
and bird life such as curlew and plover which nest in grassland will be
forced out. However there should be a net gain due to the increased population
of small mammals and an increase in the variety of bird life following
an increase in insect population.
Lastly, aesthetics. This is personal, but for me there is nothing more
beautiful than a small broad-leafed wood which reflects so delicately the
changes of weather and seasons. I would not claim the same for monotonous single
species conifer woodland especially when planted in rows! - uninviting and drab.
There is one further argument for growing trees and that is commercial.
Obviously trees have value but this is species specific. More of this later.
Where to grow
Two years ago a local farmer retired and offered me 15 acres (5.37 ha)
of rough grazing adjacent to Hawksheath Farm House which we have owned
for 33 years. The land rises steeply from the farmyard, and to enter the
grazing it is necessary to cross a beck which is identified as Thorny
Gill on the OS map. On the west of the area there is an old stone wall
and then open unpolluted moorland. To the north is the farmyard, and to
the east are the beck and an old fence and beyond that a sheep pasture.
The southern boundary is newly fenced but the fence follows a sporadic
line of mature and wind shaped hawthorns which are growing on the southern
edge of an obvious embankment and ditch. The land is between 750 and 800
ft above sea level and is on the lee of Burnmoor and so is protected from
west and southwest winds which are prevalent in the summer months. The
area is remarkably varied. Some ground is boggy with thick mosses, some
is grassy overlying peat, there are old drainage ditches filled with juncas
grass and there is open running water. In the SW part there are a number
of mature sessile oak and towards the moor there are 6 mature Norwegian
spruce. Across the whole area are tree stumps of oak and pine which I
believe were felled in the 1940s.
What to grow
The Forestry Commission offered some support and suggested a species
list. Their selection was based on the exclusive use of trees with northern
provenance (i.e. trees indigenous to the North of England, and trees grown
in the north). They assessed the area would support 6000 trees initially
but this number would be progressively reduced as the trees became mature.
We agreed the wood should be largely oak and birch and that the species
should be randomly distributed but tending towards clumps of similar species
as would be found in natural woodland. The Scots pine was selected because
it was known to grow well in the vicinity and would provide a good nursery
crop for the broad leafs. It is envisaged that in 10 years these will
probably be culled. However they do have value as a structural timber
and for posts as well as firewood.
The major crop is the sessile oak. Sessile was chosen because the mature oak
on the site are sessile. I am not convinced that this was a correct decision
because the English oak grows better in the north in some places. However this
crop is for the distant future and hopefully it will be used almost exclusively
for structural purposes. Mature oak carry a huge variety of fauna.
The common ash has value as a structural timber but is fairly slow growing.
The ash that have been planted in the vicinity over the last 10 years
have done well. Birch was a natural choice as they grow well in the vicinity
and have a dense foliage which provides wind protection for more delicate
species.
The following species and percentages were agreed:
Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) 9%
Sessile oak (Quercus petraea) 30%
Downy birch (Betula pubescens)15%
Silver birch (Betula pendula) 10%
Common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) 7%
Rowan (Sorbus acuparia) 6%
Common alder (Alnus glutinosa) 3%
Goat willow (Salix caprea) 3%
Bay willow (Salix pentandra)2%
Holly (Ilex aquifolium) 2%
Hawthorn (Crateagus monogyna) 2%
Hazel (Corylus avellana) 11%
The value of the timber is limited but is an extremely vigorous firewood.
The common alder should grow well in the wetter areas. As a timber it
has great value in producing charcoal, and is used in the clog-making
industry. The willows will need to be coppiced at 5 yearly intervals to
produce a crop of fronds which are used in basket weaving. Likewise the
hazel will need to be coppiced if fencing material is required. Hazel
interwoven fencing seems to becoming more popular. The other obvious use
for hazel is as a producer of nuts. I have a secret wish to reintroduce
red squirrels into Keasden in a few years when the hazels have started
fruiting. I can think of no very sensible use for rowan, holly or quickthorn
except they are all very beautiful berry producers, and provide food for
birds.
Planting
In Yorkshire trees can be planted from mid November to the end of March.
Generally January and February are too cold with frozen ground and potentially
severe night frosts. My first batch of 2000 was planted in March 2000 - a very
bleak month at Hawksheath with strong winds and heavy snow, but little frost.
The second batch of 2000 was planted in mid December 2000 just before the first
frost and snow arrived at Christmas.
It is possible to keep trees in planting bags with a tight string around
the neck for several weeks. It is better to avoid even a mild frost and
it is necessary to keep the roots moist. If planting is likely to be delayed
it is better to heel the roots in, though 2000 trees would require a lot
of ground preparation. The average experienced tree planter seems to be
able to plant 100 to 120 trees a day depending on the terrain. The first
batch was largely planted by Paul Fawcett (of Landcare), and took the
whole month of March. The second batch took 4-5 people 5 days, and so
they achieved roughly the same rate. The sizes of the plants vary according
to the species. The largest were the oak at 60-90 cm. As birch and willow
is so vigorous smaller plants were selected, namely 40-60 cm., though
for an experiment the goat willow in the first batch were all cuttings
and it will be interesting to see how they fare compared with the rooted
plants of the second batch. The hazel were the largest I could find because
I suspected they would have the most difficulty in becoming established.
The Scots pine were the smallest available as we considered they would
be slow starters and more vulnerable to wind. The rowan, thorn, ash and
alder were all 40 - 60 cm and the holly were all individually potted,
and as a consequence were much more expensive. Before a tree is planted,
a reasonable site is chosen and the top vegetation is skreefed with a
mattock. This results in a rectangular area of cleared earth into which
a planting spade (a special tool) is pushed. The spade is worked to produce
a wide slit into which the roots are eased using the point of the spade
to tuck the deepest roots as far down as possible. The slit is then closed
firmly with the heel and the tree is checked to make sure the root/stem
junction is just under the surface. All the trees had protection against animals. The easiest protection
to erect is the plastic tube which is attached to an adjacent wooden stake.
We used 75 cm tubes and 1.2 metre tubes. Similarly we use nets of the
same lengths for roughly half of the plants, and the smaller of these
were held in place with 2 canes and the longer with a wooden stake. The
longer tubes and nets were used for the oak and ash to preserve apical
dominance.
The disadvantage of tube protection is that the tree grows rapidly but
the stem remains weak and often breaks when the crown of the tree emerges
from the top of the tube. These trees are sometimes referred to as lollipops
for obvious reasons. On the other hand the nets do not encourage growth,
but the growing tree becomes wind strengthened and is therefore less likely
to snap. Why use protection? If the plantation were to be invaded by sheep
(sadly a less likely happening now) a huge amount of damage would be done
and most trees lost. Likewise if roe deer visit — and there is a sizeable
herd of roe deer in Keasden bottom — a similar disaster would ensue. 75
cm protection is enough for sheep, rabbits and hares (very damaging in
the winter and spring), but 1.2 metre protection is necessary for the
deer. If red deer appear then...! The tubes keep the voles out usually,
though the warm tube must provide a very comfortable place for a vole
to make its nest!
The final act is to chemically kill the vegetation in a square metre area
around the tree. This has to be repeated yearly for 3 years. This is the only
part of the process that I find disturbing, But the Forestry Commission insists
on it and it does apparently increase early growth which is so crucial.
And finally
Well, it's been a rapid learning curve for me. The first batch was awarded
an A+ by the Forestry Commission, but I doubt if the second batch will
be as successful. The view from the top of the wood - I can now call it
a wood - is stunning looking directly over to Ingleborough in the north
and Pen y Ghent in the northeast. The Lake District mountains are clearly
visible in the west (I can just discern the outline of Gimmer Crag and
remember F Route!) So far it's all been very rewarding and is something
special to leave for the next generation or two, or three! Hawksheath Farm, Keasden. April 2001
|