Stuart Alexander Leaver

Ascott Estate Outer Woodland Report 2014

Introduction:

The Ascott Estate covers an area of approximately 4,400 acres, 300 acres of which is comprised of mixed woodland (Ascott Estate, 2013). Established woodland has existed within the estate since the construction of the original core building in 1606 (Robinson et al, 2008); but more recently the numerous plantations dating from 1992 to the present have composed the majority of the woodland acreage. Such plantations may be utilised for more purposeful means than to provide cover and minor economic benefit within the near future as the requirement for biofuel and biomass has become present as a reliable and environmentally sound source of energy. It is important then to consider large areas of woodland for such uses considering the Forestry Commission's regulations.

The Forestry Commission (1994) states that mixed woodland such as that found within the outer borders of the Ascott Estate should follow the tree spacing recommendations below.

Planting at wide spacing (3.0–5.0 m) or in clumps is generally recommended where timber production is not an important aim.

If natural growth will not adequately promote good form, trees planted for timber production should be close spaced (1.5–2.0 m).

However, for a healthy woodland to be established there must be a presence of a natural progression of growth as well as the efficiency required for economic use. Thus a higher percentage of undergrowth vegetation cover is expected within healthy natural woodland systems including everything from mosses and grasses, to larger shrubs and bushes providing essential habitats for a variety of species as well as allowing soil generation to continue for healthier crops.

This study will interpret whether the 5 largest outer woodland areas present within the estate are appropriately managed in terms of spacing considering recent interests in ecosystem services such as biomass and timber production, whilst taking appropriate consideration of ecosystem consequences. It will also be used to show any effects to ground vegetation cover of undergrowth species which provide habitats for many woodland species to provide a healthy ecosystem.

Methodology:

When sampling mixed woodland, the most representative technique is random selection of individual trees within a set area to reduce any human bias. Upon entering a woodland site I initially travelled to the nearest corner and measured the distance between the primary tree and the 4 closest surrounding trees as well as the percentage cover of ground vegetation found in the middle measure of each Primary-Surrounding tree separation.

I then travelled to the other corners as well as the centre of the woodland site as a total of 5 separate sections, repeating measurements 5 times in each with randomly selected trees.

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Firstly I measured the distance between “tree centres” (which are the original growth region within the trunk) using a 30 meter tape measure, with a precision of +/- 1mm. Also recorded were the percentage vegetation covers to the nearest 5% between each tree at the middle distance measure using a 1m2 quadrat separated into 20 smaller sections along the quadrat edges. Both of these measurements are represented below in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Fig 1:

Legend:

Figure 1 - A diagram to show how the tree distance and vegetation cover was measured. (Not to scale).

Fig 2:

Figure 2 - A physical representation in the field for a single measurement; the field book marking the "primary tree".

An average for the distance measures for tree separation as well as the percentage cover for ground vegetation was calculated to produce 25 averages for further analysis. In total, 100 trees were surveyed randomly per woodland site.

Distance between trees

Quadrat (1m2)

Surrounding Tree

Primary Tree

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Results:

Site 1: Table 1

Mean tree separation distance = 2.414 meters Standard Deviation = 0.999 meters

Mean percentage vegetation cover = 37.600 % Standard Deviation = 32.594 %

Site 2: Table 2

Mean tree separation distance = 3.038 meters Standard Deviation = 0.326 meters

Mean percentage vegetation cover = 99.650 % Standard Deviation = 0.677 %

Site 3: Table 3

Mean tree separation distance = 2.130 meters Standard Deviation = 0.327 meters

Mean percentage vegetation cover = 33.250 % Standard Deviation = 33.802 %

Site 4: Table 4

Mean tree separation distance = 3.032 meters Standard Deviation = 0.730 meters

Mean percentage vegetation cover = 44.550 % Standard Deviation = 35.825 %

Site 5: Table 5

Mean tree separation distance = 2.067 meters Standard Deviation = 0.259 meters

Mean percentage vegetation cover = 25.350 % Standard Deviation = 35.044 %

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Site 1

Distance between tree centres (meters) Vegetation cover per 1m² between trees (%)

D1 D2 D3 D4 D.mean V1 V2 V3 V4 V.mean

2.200 1.950 2.800 2.850 2.450 50.000 70.000 40.000 75.000 58.750

2.190 3.720 1.940 6.060 3.478 15.000 25.000 90.000 65.000 48.750

1.670 2.050 2.000 2.080 1.950 20.000 40.000 50.000 25.000 33.750

1.880 2.860 1.890 2.820 2.363 50.000 35.000 50.000 80.000 53.750

1.240 0.950 2.150 2.010 1.588 40.000 20.000 50.000 75.000 46.250

0.890 1.260 0.760 1.600 1.128 60.000 10.000 30.000 80.000 45.000

2.700 3.850 2.720 3.370 3.160 80.000 90.000 95.000 95.000 90.000

2.540 1.140 2.760 4.540 2.745 100.000 100.000 100.000 95.000 98.750

2.920 2.250 0.810 2.480 2.115 70.000 80.000 20.000 80.000 62.500

1.770 1.400 2.120 2.080 1.843 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.000 1.250

2.720 2.780 1.900 4.250 2.913 0.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 3.750

1.700 1.560 2.211 2.390 1.965 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

3.570 3.780 2.340 1.550 2.810 100.000 100.000 95.000 100.000 98.750

2.300 2.820 2.620 3.450 2.798 50.000 20.000 10.000 10.000 22.500

4.000 5.250 5.100 6.950 5.325 20.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 27.500

1.500 3.240 2.620 3.150 2.628 10.000 5.000 5.000 20.000 10.000

1.590 1.380 2.700 5.100 2.693 0.000 0.000 5.000 5.000 2.500

3.460 1.250 3.180 1.560 2.363 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.200 2.040 0.810 0.350 0.850 10.000 60.000 70.000 40.000 45.000

1.100 1.000 2.540 2.020 1.665 50.000 40.000 40.000 70.000 50.000

2.060 1.130 1.220 3.450 1.965 10.000 0.000 20.000 50.000 20.000

1.560 2.090 2.340 2.920 2.228 10.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 6.250

5.100 4.280 3.180 4.970 4.383 100.000 90.000 80.000 100.000 92.500

1.190 1.300 0.210 0.440 0.785 5.000 5.000 0.000 0.000 2.500

2.900 2.450 3.100 0.220 2.168 20.000 40.000 15.000 5.000 20.000

Average D 2.414 Average V 37.600

Table 1 S.Dev 0.999 S.Dev 32.594

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Site 2

Distance between tree centres (meters) Vegetation cover per 1m² between trees (%)

D1 D2 D3 D4 D.mean V1 V2 V3 V4 V.mean

2.600 2.650 3.050 2.900 2.800 100.000 100.000 100.000 95.000 98.750

2.950 2.900 2.680 3.110 2.910 95.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 98.750

2.800 2.970 2.780 3.020 2.893 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

2.700 2.760 3.060 2.800 2.830 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.200 2.790 2.650 3.310 2.988 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.120 3.150 3.100 3.020 3.098 95.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 98.750

2.700 3.420 3.400 3.000 3.130 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.150 3.150 3.120 4.100 3.380 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.500 2.820 3.130 3.230 3.170 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

4.580 3.290 3.010 3.130 3.503 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.260 3.000 3.200 3.190 3.163 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

2.760 3.050 2.820 3.000 2.908 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.150 2.800 3.320 2.790 3.015 100.000 100.000 95.000 100.000 98.750

2.700 2.710 2.650 2.720 2.695 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

2.300 2.500 2.420 2.450 2.418 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

2.610 2.650 2.600 2.570 2.608 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.300 3.100 3.350 3.500 3.313 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

2.800 2.910 2.970 2.830 2.878 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.600 3.710 2.980 3.100 3.348 100.000 100.000 100.000 95.000 98.750

2.510 3.000 2.600 2.720 2.708 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.060 3.120 3.590 3.410 3.295 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

2.320 3.090 3.260 3.310 2.995 95.000 95.000 100.000 100.000 97.500

3.190 3.220 3.270 3.010 3.173 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

2.990 2.890 2.860 2.320 2.765 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.710 4.050 4.190 3.920 3.968 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

Average D 3.038 Average V 99.650

Table 2 S.Dev 0.326 S.Dev 0.677

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Site 3

Distance between tree centres (meters) Vegetation cover per 1m² between trees (%)

D1 D2 D3 D4 D.mean V1 V2 V3 V4 V.mean

1.880 2.410 2.600 1.870 2.190 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.460 1.700 2.440 2.560 2.040 5.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.250

1.890 1.780 2.800 2.340 2.203 5.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 3.750

1.710 2.100 1.730 1.950 1.873 50.000 75.000 50.000 65.000 60.000

1.820 1.960 2.970 2.720 2.368 85.000 70.000 90.000 95.000 85.000

3.230 2.740 2.240 2.850 2.765 90.000 70.000 95.000 90.000 86.250

1.650 1.690 2.260 2.510 2.028 60.000 20.000 20.000 50.000 37.500

3.310 1.720 2.660 2.020 2.428 90.000 5.000 5.000 10.000 27.500

1.750 1.670 2.400 1.940 1.940 80.000 90.000 95.000 80.000 86.250

2.720 1.520 3.010 2.570 2.455 25.000 75.000 100.000 25.000 56.250

1.970 1.850 3.000 4.520 2.835 50.000 70.000 95.000 100.000 78.750

1.720 1.450 2.050 1.920 1.785 0.000 0.000 5.000 5.000 2.500

1.100 2.510 2.760 2.090 2.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

2.270 1.820 2.310 2.310 2.178 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.580 2.150 1.590 2.450 1.943 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.780 2.010 2.170 1.820 1.945 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.390 1.330 1.410 1.960 1.523 0.000 5.000 10.000 0.000 3.750

1.810 2.100 1.920 1.520 1.838 5.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.250

2.100 2.920 1.380 1.720 2.030 10.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 5.000

2.010 2.210 2.920 3.460 2.650 35.000 40.000 25.000 90.000 47.500

1.760 2.540 1.560 2.140 2.000 20.000 60.000 35.000 50.000 41.250

1.890 2.320 1.780 1.870 1.965 10.000 30.000 15.000 10.000 16.250

1.560 1.980 1.770 1.670 1.745 45.000 30.000 55.000 70.000 50.000

2.030 2.030 1.390 2.230 1.920 50.000 70.000 45.000 25.000 47.500

2.240 2.130 2.130 3.450 2.488 80.000 100.000 95.000 100.000 93.750

Average D 2.130 Average V 33.250

Table 3 S.Dev 0.327 S.Dev 33.802

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Site 4

Distance between tree centres (meters) Vegetation cover per 1m² between trees (%)

D1 D2 D3 D4 D.mean V1 V2 V3 V4 V.mean

2.340 2.050 2.730 3.050 2.543 5.000 0.000 20.000 5.000 7.500

3.520 2.300 2.280 2.610 2.678 60.000 50.000 50.000 70.000 57.500

2.100 1.700 2.120 2.600 2.130 10.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 6.250

2.300 2.240 2.400 2.310 2.313 0.000 10.000 0.000 5.000 3.750

4.120 3.990 3.950 4.520 4.145 80.000 70.000 70.000 90.000 77.500

2.270 2.640 2.390 3.590 2.723 60.000 60.000 20.000 90.000 57.500

2.850 2.110 1.850 3.670 2.620 10.000 30.000 90.000 40.000 42.500

2.310 2.520 1.420 2.690 2.235 5.000 10.000 25.000 45.000 21.250

2.700 3.050 4.120 3.300 3.293 0.000 0.000 50.000 5.000 13.750

2.380 2.420 3.230 2.390 2.605 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

3.700 4.590 4.250 4.390 4.233 85.000 90.000 95.000 95.000 91.250

2.050 1.950 3.210 2.950 2.540 5.000 10.000 10.000 20.000 11.250

3.300 2.200 5.120 6.720 4.335 30.000 70.000 30.000 100.000 57.500

2.070 1.960 3.100 5.190 3.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.000 15.000

2.600 1.700 2.950 3.050 2.575 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

2.010 2.190 1.690 2.920 2.203 100.000 100.000 95.000 95.000 97.500

2.200 2.560 3.460 4.110 3.083 10.000 40.000 60.000 70.000 45.000

1.910 1.820 2.100 2.520 2.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

2.450 3.260 2.570 3.110 2.848 45.000 60.000 35.000 40.000 45.000

3.460 3.890 4.230 3.580 3.790 50.000 60.000 55.000 25.000 47.500

2.640 3.120 3.240 3.520 3.130 25.000 15.000 10.000 55.000 26.250

2.220 2.750 3.420 3.010 2.850 0.000 10.000 5.000 15.000 7.500

4.780 5.340 3.470 4.060 4.413 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

3.230 3.650 3.490 3.210 3.395 95.000 90.000 100.000 100.000 96.250

4.050 3.980 3.840 3.920 3.948 100.000 75.000 85.000 85.000 86.250

Average D 3.032 Average V 44.550

Table 4 S.Dev 0.730 S.Dev 35.825

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Site 5

Distance between tree centres (meters) Vegetation cover per 1m² between trees (%)

D1 D2 D3 D4 D.mean V1 V2 V3 V4 V.mean

1.700 1.670 2.300 2.290 1.990 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.710 1.690 2.310 2.250 1.990 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.800 1.750 2.250 2.210 2.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.850 1.810 2.350 2.320 2.083 0.000 10.000 10.000 0.000 5.000

1.600 1.610 2.290 2.300 1.950 10.000 5.000 10.000 0.000 6.250

1.580 1.620 2.350 2.340 1.973 50.000 20.000 30.000 50.000 37.500

2.500 2.020 2.120 2.360 2.250 10.000 0.000 70.000 80.000 40.000

1.250 1.510 2.190 2.010 1.740 100.000 90.000 95.000 100.000 96.250

1.190 1.750 1.230 1.210 1.345 20.000 30.000 20.000 10.000 20.000

2.000 2.050 2.520 2.490 2.265 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.500 1.510 2.610 2.600 2.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.500 1.520 2.520 2.500 2.010 0.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 3.750

1.510 1.530 2.510 2.510 2.015 0.000 0.000 10.000 5.000 3.750

1.500 1.500 2.480 2.490 1.993 0.000 0.000 10.000 10.000 5.000

1.500 1.500 2.490 2.500 1.998 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.520 1.510 2.600 2.540 2.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.510 1.500 2.510 2.490 2.003 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 2.500

1.510 1.500 2.540 2.470 2.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1.510 1.500 2.500 2.500 2.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.000 1.250

1.500 1.500 2.500 2.450 1.988 0.000 0.000 20.000 30.000 12.500

2.340 2.100 1.670 1.740 1.963 60.000 70.000 50.000 60.000 60.000

2.540 2.430 2.830 2.560 2.590 100.000 70.000 90.000 80.000 85.000

2.890 2.980 2.430 2.190 2.623 90.000 100.000 90.000 90.000 92.500

2.320 2.570 2.510 2.500 2.475 95.000 75.000 80.000 70.000 80.000

2.760 2.320 2.150 2.100 2.333 90.000 90.000 80.000 70.000 82.500

Average D 2.067 Average V 25.350

Table 5 S.Dev 0.259 S.Dev 35.044

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Analysis

Site 1:

Results showed that the mean separation distance of 2.414 ± 0.999 meters between trees, though variable, fell within the recommended spacing boundaries for both non economic usage (3.0–5.0 m) and economic usage (1.0-2.0m), conveying that it is suitably spaced.

The mean percentage vegetation cover fluctuated around a relatively low mean cover of 37.600 ± 32.594%. This implies that like the result for tree separation, the result for vegetation also varied quite substantially.

However observations showed that both these high variations were due to uneven spacing around the edges and the centre. Trees were found to be clumped within large groups toward the edges, appearing smaller in appearance in both height and trunk width. Larger trees were found within the centre of the site where appropriate space provided room for growth of both the trunk as well as surrounding vegetation. Many fallen trees and dead wood were found within these clumps around the edges.

Site 2:

Results showed that the mean separation distance of 3.038 ± 0.326 meters between trees showed low variance and fell within the non economic boundary (3.0-5.0m), as well as being well over the upper threshold for economic use, implying that it is more than suitably spaced for an economic purpose and within the bounds for non economic use.

The mean percentage vegetation cover had almost perfect cover of 99.650 ± 0.677%, suggesting that the low variance and large spacing between trees provided more area for a substantial proportion of growth to occur.

Fig 3: Fig 4:

Figure 3 - An onsite photograph showing the overgrown areas found within the plantation, with shorter than average trees .

Figure 4 - An example of a fallen sapling still in a plastic trunk cover.

Stuart Alexander Leaver

While studying the site, common observations included overgrown areas which seemed to reduce growth of saplings in certain areas (Figure 3) as well as reducing access for sufficient results to be taken. Areas with less surrounding vegetation such as Nettles and Brambles showed generally more growth to a mature state. Fallen trees were also common allowing surrounding trees to grow taller due to more spacing (Figure 4); however this did reduce the efficiency of the site for possible economic means. Both of these observations imply that the area needs appropriate management to improve ground cover for better tree growth and stability.

Site 3:

Results showed that the mean separation distance of 2.130 ± 0.327 meters between trees showed low variance but fell only within the economic usage boundary (1.0-2.0m). This suggests that the spacing between trees is not suitable for non economic use and may prove to be an issue for the undergrowth biodiversity.

The mean percentage vegetation cover of 33.250 ± 33.802% varied highly unlike the separation between the trees and was relatively low as expected in such a site attuned to more economic usage rather than the alternative.

Similar to Site 1, there was a difference between the edges and centre of the site where clumping of trees occurred at the woodland edges. Within these areas there were signs of stress to particular trees including disease as shown in Figure 5; some examples also had fallen or been snapped along the trunk (Figure 6), however these were uncommon. Within the centre there were overgrown areas between clumps in rows, found within them were logs and other debris not cleared from previous clearing in 2011 as shown in Figure 7.

Fig 5: Fig 6:

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Fig 7:

Figure 5 - An example of a disease tree found at the edge of the site.

Figure 6 - An example of a snapped tree found in the centre of the site.

Figure 7 - One of the several overgrown cleared lanes within the site.

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Site 4:

Results showed that the mean tree separation distance of 3.032 ± 0.730 had high variance and fell within both the non economic (3.0-5.0m) usage boundaries implying that there is suitable spacing for such a use.

The mean percentage vegetation cover of 44.550 ± 35.825% varied highly like that of the separation distance. The large spacing provided suitable spacing for an average cover to be established within the site.

When surveying the woodland a noticeable feature was the elevation and gradient providing different levels for growth to occur leading to fairly taller trees than those found in other sites as well as more ground vegetation. Some dead trees were found alongside cleared areas, however the majority of the area was well managed and seemed to be naturally controlled.

Site 5:

Results showed that the mean tree separation distance of 2.067 ± 0.259 meters had low variance and fell within the economic usage boundary (1.0-2.0m) but not the non economic usage boundary (3.0-5.0m).

The mean percentage vegetation cover of 25.350 ± 35.044% conveys that there is a high variance around a low mean cover unlike that of the separation distance.

Throughout the study of this site there was a clear difference in the purpose of usage for economic means. Trees were very closely spaced and left to grown unmanaged leading to many areas being inaccessible for appropriate measurements to be taken as shown below in Figure 8. There clear juxtaposition of vegetation within the woodland and in cleared areas with only very basic species such as mosses being able to grow within the woodland (Figure 9), whilst tall grasses could develop in clearings where cutting of the woodland was taking place (Figure 10).

Fig 8:

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Fig 9: Fig 10:

Limitations and

Improvements:

The limitations for this project included the equipment which lacked definitive precision (which has been accounted for), this could have been improved with better equipment such as laser measures and finer spaced quadrats (to 1% rather than 5%). Inaccessibility to certain areas of woodland reduced the amount and quality of measurements taken as time constraints meant that only particular regions of woodland could be recorded at one time. Different sized woodlands with different tree species compositions also proved challenging, as the density of trees was clearly higher in smaller sites. More time for more measurements would have improved the study.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

From the investigation taken place in the outer woodland, I can conclude the following:

Site 3 and Site 5 has suitable tree separation for economic usage, however this is not true for non economic usage. If these sites are not to be used for economic means they will require further clearance and management in order to provide appropriate conditions.

Figure 8 - A central area left to become overgrown.

Figure 9 - A lack of vegetation apart from mosses was shown in most areas.

Figure 10 - Clearing zone within the centre of the woodland.

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Site 1 has suitable tree separation for both economic and non economic uses. Further management is required to clear bunched areas and to clear fallen trees for economic use, but little or no further action is require for non economic usage as dead wood and other features are suitable for the ecosystem.

Site 2 and 4 has suitable tree separation for non economic usage and these areas if partially maintained could be left to continue in a natural succession pattern for a healthy ecosystem. Site 2 has particular potential for economic usage due to its regular spacing, however the site will need to be cleared of ground vegetation as well as fallen trees and maintained regularly.

As well as these conclusions I would also recommend an altered structure to the plantations providing efficient space for both economic and non economic use that provides appropriate areas for vegetation growth and ecosystem health / stability. This is shown in Figure 11.

Fig 11:

3.00m

4.25m

Legend:

Tree

3m2 central zone

Stuart Alexander Leaver

Figure 11 - The spacing between trees along the diagonal axis at 3.00m between each tree centre provides a 3m2 area in the centre where growth of ground vegetation can occur without being hindered by the spacing of trees around it. These distances can be increased or decreased for more or less economic means.

References:

Ascott Estate, (2013), Available at - http://www.ascottestate.co.uk/

Forestry Commission, (1994). The Management of Semi-natural Woodlands 3. Lowland Mixed Broadleaved Woods, Forestry Commission Edinburgh. Available at - http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/fcpg003.pdf/$FILE/fcpg003.pdf

Robinson J.M., Wolfe K., Gore F.St.J., Laing A., Krahl R., Forrest T., Taylor P. , (2008). Ascott. Scala Publishers Ltd.