
|
The Woodland Education Centre
The Heathland Restoration Project
Contents |

|
Ecological Surveys
1996 - 1998
Conclusions cont'd
| In contrast, the northern
sections adjacent to the control strip (6 - 9), showed clearly visible differences between
them, many of which were likely to be the result of differing management techniques. Sections
7 and 9 were the most clearly demarcated sections. In section 7, the initial use of Kerb
granules to control grasses has had a significant effect on the vegetation. In the other
sections, the main effect of brushcutting seems to have been the encouragement of the
spread of coarse grasses. This had not happened in section 7 (which is also brushcut). The
neighbouring sections, 6 and 8, were dominated by grasses, but in section 7, large swathes
were covered instead in sedges and low gorse cover. |
 |
The predominance of sedges and
gorse in section 7 is presumably a result of decreased competition with grasses (although
it may also be environmental in the case of the sedges). Clearly, the initial application
of Garlon to control the gorse in this section has had little effect. left: gorse seems to be thriving where there is reduced
competition from grasses. |
| Section
9, in clear contrast to all other sections, was dominated by Heather and by Polytrichum
moss, which carpeted the areas in between the Heather and other plants such as gorse and
tree seedlings. |
 |
Although this section has not
been cut, the gorse was much shorter and did not dominate as it did in the control
section. This may be a consequence of competition with the well-established Heather in the
region. So far, the only real difference in management
between this section and the control section lies in the initial use of Roundup to control
species likely to compete with the Heather. It is highly unlikely that this treatment has
produced the enormously significant difference in Heather cover observed. It is instead,
far more likely that environmental differences have been the major controlling factor in
this case.
left: Heather plants in section 9 of the
Heathland Restoration site. |
The growth form of the Heather plants in section 9 was that of tall, rather straggly
bushes. In contrast, in section 6, which is brushcut three times a year, the Heather
formed low extremely dense clumps where it occurred. In time, this may favour the spread
of Heather in this section because the dense compact growth form gives the Heather a
significant competitive advantage over other species competing for space. While the
different management techniques were clearly beginning to show measurable effects on the
vegetation, the project site is still in the very early stages of heathland regeneration.
It is too soon to predict exactly what effects the management techniques will have in the
long run.
Full restoration of a heathland area is likely to be a very long-term project. Changes
in climatic and environmental factors with time will all affect how fast and how far the
restoration proceeds. Over the last three years, the summers have all been very wet and
there have been no droughts to influence the vegetation on the heathland site. The
ericaceous plants (plants belonging to the family Ericaceae) typical of heathlands are all
adapted to withstand dry conditions. Hot, dry summers, introducing drought conditions to
the site, would greatly promote these species at the expense of others, less well-adapted.
Long-term changes to the nutrient status and pH of the soil will also have significant
effects on the plant community establishing on the site.
For an article describing the heathland five years after regeneration click here.
|
Continue to Acknowledgements
|