Bill - yes woodlands do generally require some intervention (depending on your perspective) and often thinning is required as trees are planted at a high density to account for natural die back/planting failure etc, and many planting schemes will include a plan for future thinning.
Have been thinking about this thread for a while now .....well the brain cells do take a little time to get into gear nowadays!
On the A627(M) between Chadderton and junction 20 of the M62 a similar project was undertaken sometime in the last two/three years. When the motorway embankment trees were thinned out, initially everything did look a bit stark and bare. I can't claim that I have detailed notes on what the embankments looked like then, other than just thinking they were a collection of trees growing far too closely together. My impression is that since the thinning out has taken place that there does appear to be an understorey of plant life, bramble thickets etc, that appears to be forming and if these are allowed to survive - granted that might be a big if - then possibly these motorway green corridors might eventually become much better habitats for a greater variety of birds thanks to this bit of management? Might it be one of those cases where sometimes you have to go backwards before you can go forwards? Don't most woodlands need some sort of management to obtain the maximum return for nature? I'm sure this tidying up isn't being done with wildlife in mind and another sad thing to me is the copycat/fashionable element to this. Obviously once one local authority has tried this, then the all the others appear to have followed like sheep - presumably without waiting to see if what the "pioneers" are doing is in any way effective. So presumably as they are all doing the same thing then the oulook for birdlife is going to be either success on a grand scale or failure on a grand scale - with no middle ground.
The "Wildlife Corridors" concept of the 1980s-1990s - I have a map somewhere showing Wigan's - never had any legal protection. Henry is right about green belt. One obvious example of planning thinking is at Broadheath, where an area of agricultural land between Sinderland Rd and the Sinderland Brook intruded into what was otherwise a fairly well-defined N-S line defining the extent of urban development and the beginning of Carrington Moss. This has now been developed when the NT sold it.
__________________
Judith Smith
__________________________________
Lightshaw hall Flash is sacrosanct - NO paths please!
The same is true of Greenbelt. Piece by piece it is developed over time and there is often 'infilling' to join up urbanised spaces with more development. These days planners often talk of greenbelt as a series of 'green wedges' which have radiating urban areas seperating the open green areas. It is plain untrue to call Manchesters greenbelt a 'belt'. Whilst the green wedges do currently persist (for how long?) they do make good wildlife corridors, conspicuously for birds to migrate along. The Timperley green wedge which includes my patch of Davenport Green is a typical piece of lowland farmland and sees good numbers of migrants funnelling up the wedge northwards to the Mersey corridor from where they continue their journey.
-- Edited by Henry Cook on Saturday 20th of March 2010 07:35:13 AM
Once upon a time in the 1980's, we were invited by the 'name' naturalists of the day to rejoice in the part played by green corridors that ran the lenght of our motorways and railways. Apparently they were the salvation of Britain's wildlife, but as pointed out in the other posts they are in fact little more than cosmetic window dressing which can be removed at the whim of the authorities. I reckon we have lost more trees along our roads and railways in the last decade than ever before and the fact is they have no legal protection (except if they are harbouring nesting birds, but even they are not safe from Network Rail unless someone sees them 'in the act'). Anyone who bought the idea that green corridors were a permanent and indispensable part of the landscape was a fool. Anything that is not an official Reserve owned by a wildlife organisation is fair game for the 'suits' in high places.
I noticed that too Phil. Guess they'd call it 'thinning out' but the dudes in orange vests removed all the good bramble scrub as well! I heard two singing Goldcrests from a section of habitat at the edge of the motorway just this morning a little further down the road from where the thinning has happened, so these areas do hold wildlife. The priorities of safety to motorists probably proceed that of wildlife in this case though.
My only wish would be that when thinning out, they didn't pulverize perfectly good logs into sawdust piles using petrol powered machines, thereby cutting out the role of much microfauna who would happily turn a log into soil over time, but also contributing to atmospheric co2!
-- Edited by Henry Cook on Wednesday 17th of March 2010 07:37:41 PM
Driving down the M56 towards the Airport tonight, I was alarmed by the number of trees which have been cut down, presumably to make the embankment "more attractive".
Are the relevant authorities just allowed to come along and cut down the trees??
Surely it has to involve some form of permission, especially with wildlife and birds etc to consider??
Sadly, a lot of natural habitat appears to have been lost.
- presumably without waiting to see if what the "pioneers" are doing is in any way effective. So presumably as they are all doing the same thing then the oulook for birdlife is going to be either success on a grand scale or failure on a grand scale - with no middle ground.