If the countryside was allowed to revert back to forest...

[Deb London]

I can't seem to find the answer to this on Google, so please bear with me.

If the countryside was allowed to revert back to woodland and forest, without any influence by mankind from now on, what would the various dominant trees species be in the long run? I'm aware this would vary region to region. It would be good if someone could refer me to an internet resource discussing this subject.

Thanks.

[The Woodman]

That's an interesting question.

Presuming you want to leave all current timber standing? This might have a bearing in respect of non native species dominating certain areas and do you include grazing in your definition of influence by mankind?

The species would vary not only regionally but according to habitat / geology.

Can't help with references, sorry.

[thunder]

It might well depend on which tree species had good fruiting years in the early stages. Lots of acorns = lots of oaks. Lots of ash-keys = lots of Ash. etc etc

henrya

[Dorts]

Agreed, it is an interestng question Deb and one that has been mulled over many times.

Dominance of a particular species depends on many things such as the potential density, mature size and lifespan of that species. In most cases it would be a variety of species that would eventually dominate as is the case in almost all natural woodland, but there are always exceptions.

Let's look for example at a piece of open chalk grassland
To start with you will get the 'pioneer' species such as Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Rose, Elder and Hazel. These species will then, in only a few years, create an environment suitable for the second phase of species to become established, like Whitebeam, Ash, Sycamore and maybe Juniper, followed shortly be Beech, Holly and Yew.

Any of the first mentioned species either together or alone have the ability to dominate for up to 50 years or so, or maybe more.

Enevitably Beech, (and we are still on the chalk here) which has the ability to shade-out all other broadleaf trees, will gradually become dominant and this could last for several hundred years.
But still growing beneath the Beech, after all the other species have almost dissapeared, will be the Yew and Holly, which are able to make the most of the sunlight during the winter months being evergreens.

Eventually Yew will dominate and this dominance could potentially last for several thousand years! Very little is able to live beneath Yew as seen at Kingley Vale in Sussex, Europes largest Yew Wood.

But whatever pattern this progession takes, there will always be open areas due to grazing animals, which without man's interference will flourish; or on high hills where strong winds blow, or perhaps because the soil is not able to support dense woodland.

It would be a vast ever-changing patchwork, all native species able to find their niche' somewhere in this 'wild-wood'.
Dorts.

[ForestPaul]

The process is known as succession and it will depend mainly on what's growing nearby. The commonest colonizing species in Britain are ash, birch, elm, oak, hawthorn and sycamore.

In an experiment at Rothamsted in 1882 (the Broadbalk wilderness) an area of wheat growing land was left alone and in 30 years became mixed oak and sycamore woodland.

[Fauna]

Thats uncanny...I was thinking something similar today Deb while i was walking out of a Sitka Spruce plantation.

It would be an impressive sight to see, vasts areas of Britain back to woodland. But i suppose it would be hard to envisage what would become the most dominant.

I was recently down at Stackpole Warren area looking at the rare scramble egg lichen, one of the CCW organisers on the day pointed out the Holm Oak in the area, he suggested that as the climate is warming this tree will become the new "Sycamore" in Britian.

[The Woodman]

Limited areas of succession can be found where setaside was taken up. I have been watching the development of a 12 y.o. (I think) area near the Malverns where the thicket stage is just starting to be repressed by closing Birch and Sycamore. It's a haven for Muntjac.

I shudder at Faunas comment re the Sitka plantation , it is regenerating in several places I know of and I wouldn't like to see it dominate our high rainfall areas where native oaks once grew. The Lakes in particular.

[faz]

noooo the loss of all the other flora and funa

[willowjay]

Well my garden would very quickly revert to an ash wood if the number of seedlings/yearlings/ones we've missed amongst the shrubs is anything to go by. Shallow soil - almost river gravel - at the top of Chichester Harbour - ash and willow dominant, though some interesting pockets of very old, stunted oaks down by the water line. Covered in lichens, blasted by salt winds and stunningly beautiful.

[Deb London]

Thanks everyone!

Yes, in this case, all standing timber would be left. I can find resources that tell me what the UK might have been like if the ancient forests had been allowed to stay, after the Ice Age. But I'm just curious to discover what would happen if we just did nothing from now on. There seem to be many factors that would influence the types of woodland that would eventually arise. There are introduced species, various tree diseases, a changed and changing climate and probably a number of other things to consider. We wouldn't be talking about a clean slate left by the retreating ice and a cold but warming climate. The situation would be more complicated I guess.

Dorts' idea of the Yew woodland lasting thousands of years and out-competing other species intrigues me. I always think of chalk grassland as a very productive and diverse environment, but yew is dense and lives 'forever'. I can just imagine that little else would survive.

So if the countryside was left to its own devices, let's say for 1000 years, is it fair to say that many species would die out?