Diagram of the Heathland Restoration Project site and summary of management methods.

Offwell Woodland & Wildlife Trust

Promoting the British Countryside

Home

About us

Conservation

Education

Wildlife

Habitats

Maps

Search

Resources

Sponsors

wpe7A.jpg (7211 bytes)

The Woodland Education Centre
The Heathland Restoration Project
Trialling different methods of management for heathland restoration.
Contents

wpe7A.jpg (7211 bytes)

Nine sections are marked out longitudinally from east to west up and down the slope. The demarcations are not actual physical boundaries, but are marked out at intervals with white post markers. Different sections have been assigned different management regimes.

The whole Heathland Restoration Project area was originally covered in a failed conifer crop, planted in the 1960's. There was also an extensive rhododendron understorey (inset right). The site was completely cleared in 1993.

(This work was funded by the Countryside Commission.)

Clearing the project site, inset is the former rhododendron understorey.

Some large tree stumps were mechanically removed during clearance. The resulting ground disturbance exposed the underlying greensand geology in several places, resulting in some noticeably different conditions in these small local areas of the site.

Woodland clearance resulted in an explosion of growth from seed banks previously dormant in the soil. (This would have resulted in only partial depletion of the seed bank. Many dormant seeds would still have remained.)

This initial regrowth consisted mainly of woodland species which would compete with regenerating heathland vegetation.

This regrowth was therefore cleared by spraying with Roundup, which is a general purpose herbicide. This rendered the entire project site bare of vegetation, so that initially the site was superficially uniform.

The nine sections subsequently demarcated on the heathland site are not uniform in terms of size, nor in terms of flora, since the sections at the boundaries of the area (1,2 and 8,9) are particularly influenced by adjacent woodland. This may affect both microclimate and soil conditions. These sections are also likely to have greater numbers of tree seedlings becoming established, due to proximity to the woodland. The top (western end) of each section may also be influenced by the deciduous woodland beyond the narrow bridlepath forming the boundary.

Bluebell Woods

Immature
Coniferous
Woodland

Diagrammatic representation of the main features of the project site.

Wet Woodland

With these limitations in mind, different management regimes were assigned to each section, with the aim of promoting the natural colonization and establishment of heather and other characteristic heath species in one or more of the sections. To compensate for the considerable differences in size of the southern sections and the influence of the woodland boundary, sections 1 and 3 are duplicates of the same management regime, as are sections 2 and 4.

Action>>	Spring Brushcut	Summer Brushcut	Autumn Brushcut	Roundup Herbicide	Garlon & Kerb	Handweed	Initiated
Section No.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
1	-	-	+	-	-	-	Autumn 1995
2	+	-	-	-	-	-	Spring 1996
3	-	-	+	-	-	-	Autumn 1995
4	+	-	-	-	-	-	Spring 1996
5	-	-	-	-	-	-	Control
6	+	+	+	-	-	-	Spring 1996
7	+	-	-	-	+	-	Spring 1996
8	-	-	+	+	-	-	Autumn 1996
9	-	-	-	+	-	+	1996

Management regimes were initiated in the Autumn of 1995, after the second natural regeneration had taken place across the site.

All of the sections apart from sections 5 and 9, are cut with a brushcutter at certain times of year.

Most are cut once annually (see the table above for timings), apart from section 6 which is cut 3 times a year, in spring, summer and autumn.

With a few exceptions, the same person has been cutting the strips since the experiment started. This means that there has been a considerable level of personal standardisation over the way the strips have been cut.

In times past, animals would be turned out to graze on heaths at certain times of year. Their grazing controlled the growth of tree seedlings and taller plants on the heath and prevented the gradual transformation of the heath into scrub woodland.

The brushcutting used on the project site is intended to simulate the effects of different timing and levels of grazing intensity. It is obviously not a perfect simulation because the effects of grazing will depend a great deal on the stocking rate (density) of the animals. Cattle also tend to be selective in their grazing, preferring some plants to others.

Clearing all cuttings from a newly brushcut strip 4.

After brushcutting, the dead cuttings are raked off and removed from the sections. This prevents the remaining vegetation being smothered. It also prevents decay of the cuttings and resulting enrichment of the soil. This would be detrimental to heathland restoration because true heath species are adapted to survive on nutrient depleted soils.

Garlon (used to control gorse) was spot-sprayed once onto gorse in section 7 in May 1996, when the gorse was actively growing.

Kerb granules (which specifically act against grasses) were also applied in section 7 in December 1996. No further control has been applied using these substances since these initial applications.

Roundup was selectively applied to a variety of plants viewed as undesirable (such as thistles and regenerating woodland species) in sections 8 and 9 in September 1996. Controlled application only to selected plants was achieved using a spot applicator known as a weed wiper. This operation was carried out once.

Section 9 has been hand weeded throughout the life of the experiment, whenever labour has allowed. Both staff and volunteer labour have been utilized to periodically remove some of the colonizing brambles and tree seedlings.

Ecological Surveys 96 - 98
Contents