 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation
Volume 3 (I), 1999
|
Page Contents |
|
|
Editorial |
|
Main Papers |
|
Notes |
| Continuous
Cover Forestry Continuous Rodney Helliwell Consultant in silviculture, arboriculture and plant ecology. Abstract Continuous Cover forestry involves a different approach towards management, from that which has been the norm in Britain for the last 100 years or more. Under Continuous Cover, felling and regeneration are carried out throughout the whole of the woodland area, and there is no clear felling of trees when they reach some predetermined age. The concepts of age and area, which govern the management of coppice woodland or clear-felled high forest, are therefore not applicable. Introduction
The main advantage of Continuous Cover is that forest conditions are retained
at all times, and there is therefore no sudden or drastic change in the
Current
concepts Objectives The overall objective of Continuous Cover forestry is to maximise the benefits derived from the forest, whilst letting natural processes do as much of the work as possible. Under ideal circumstances, the only expenditure will be the work involved in deciding which individual trees to remove, the costs of felling and removing them, and keeping adequate records. There would be no planting or tending of small trees and no remunerative thinning. Timber production A properly functioning Continuous Cover forest can be a very cost-effective producer of timber. The average size of log which is produced under such circumstances is greater than the average log produced from a clear-felling system, as most of the timber increment accrues to the larger trees Nature conservation It is often claimed that clear felling systems can provide the full range of conditions for all woodland plants, animals, and fungi; and for some non-woodland species as well. They do not, however, provide a great amount of continuity, and some species are not able to move around easily or to survive until optimal conditions return. Continuous Cover can provide such continuity, in addition to local heterogeneity, and will therefore benefit most woodland species. Clearly some species will be disadvantaged under this regime; including any which require large open areas, unless suitable areas are deliberately maintained on a permanent basis. Influence on the landscape When seen from a distance, Continuous Cover forestry presents a more or less unchanging appearance, with no visible areas of felling. Similarly, the internal landscape of the forest changes very little, with individual trees being removed from time to time, but with no drastic changes which would make a location within the forest unrecognisable. Although the Continuous Cover forest is not normally as dense and impenetrable as a thicket-stage even-aged plantation, a woodland or forest managed in this way will have no sudden opening up of temporary views. Recreation Continuous Cover forest provides an attractive and subtly varied landscape, and which always contains some large mature trees. This system, potentially provides a very suitable environment in which to undertake walking, camping, nature study, orienteering, riding or cycling, and gives feelings of permanence and closeness to nature, which many people, value. Tree species In many instances, Continuous Cover forestry uses tree species which are native to the site, and are therefore well adapted to growing and regenerating there. However, in a country such as Britain, where the number of native tree species is relatively small, it is frequently the case that non-native species are used, at least to some extent. The guidelines suggested by Pro Silva (the association of European foresters concerned with 44 natural" forest management) for the use of non- native species are: i. No major introduction of exoties should be permitted to an,extent which would reduce or prevent the retention or growth of an adequate representation of indigenous forest types. ii. Any introduced species should not be so aggressive as to suppress or eliminate indigenous species. iii. Any introduced species should be suited to the local climate, and should not cause impoverishment of the soil iv. Any introduced species must not spread disease or create instability of ecosystems. v. Any introduced species must not run an abnormal risk of itself being affected by pests, disease, or climate. vi. An introduced species should be able to merge with the indigenous vegetation without excluding the indigenous flora and fauna. |
However,
in planting new woodland on non- woodland sites, it may often be helpful
to plant non-native species which will provide woodland conditions quickly
and economically and then allow a Continuous Cover system to commence. Species
such as hybrid poplars, which will not produce any viable seed, or Corsican
pine, which will not regenerate easily on most reasonably fertile sites
in Britain, may be suitable for such purposes; and may provide a reasonable
income when they are removed to make way for other species which will regenerate
and grow on the site permanently. A typical new planting on a bare site might include 70% poplars, pines, etc., together with 30% ash, oak, sycamore, birch, cherry, beech, etc., to produce the eventual woodland. An alternative, and more natural, approach would be to plant a matrix of birch, with other species mixed with it. Birch is a relatively quick- growing native "pioneer" species, but it is not the easiest of species to plant successfully and requires weed-free soil in which to become established. It does not (in Britain) usually produce highly valued timber, although it makes excellent firewood and it can be used for turnery or furniture-rnaking. Continuous Cover forest almost always involves a mixture of tree species. In theory, it could be applied to a single species, but in practice it is usually easier to obtain natural regeneration if it includes at least two species. In addition, there are usually advantages in terms of amenity and conservation. Continuous Cover requires tree species that can be relied upon to regenerate naturally on the site in question. Planting can be used, but not easily, and many of the economic advantages, in particular, are then likely to be lost. Possible problems and constraints Continuous Cover forestry requires herbivores (deer, rabbits, hares, sheep, cattle, etc.) to be excluded, or maintained at a level where natural regeneration of trees is not prevented. This can be a problem, particularly in small woods which are in a locality where deer are allowed to increase in numbers without adequate control. Fencing against deer, in particular, can be difficult and expensive. In places where populations of deer and rabbits fluctuate, it may be that sufficient regeneration is obtained in periods when populations are low. Most types of active forest management require good access, particularly if timber is to be removed, and for the practice of Continuous Cover forestry it is essential, as timber of all sizes is produced in a steady flow rather than in large amounts at long intervals; so ready access by horses, tractors, or more specialised machinery is needed .As discussed above, some tree species may not lend themselves to this type of forestry, and this may limit its use in circumstances where the owner wishes to grow such species. In the past, the system of taxation in Britain favoured clear-felling, but that changed, following the budget of 1985. Similarly, the various forestry grant schemes over the past 50 years have favoured planting and felling on an area basis, and other methods of management have fitted less easily into these schemes, but attitudes are changing and additional grants are now available for which Continuous Cover forestry is well-suited. Obtaining
natural regeneration
If there is an adequate supply of seed, if there is not too much competing
vegetation, and if herbivores are not too numerous, then it should be
possible to obtain adequate regeneration. The number of successful seedlings
per hectare per year that is required to maintain Continuous Cover forestry
is not as large as many people tend to think, and extensive carpets of
dense regeneration can be more of a nuisance than as asset, as they are
likely to require expensive and laborious treatment to reduce over-crowding.
References Hamilton, G.], and Christie, ].M. (1971) Forest moriggement tables. Forestry Commission BookJet No. 34. HMSO, London. *Hart, C. (1995) Alternatve silviculture systems to clear cutting in Brtain: a review. Forestry Commission Bulletin 1 15. HMSO, London. Helliwell, D.R. (1982) Options in forestry. a review of litetuture on the effects of different tree species and silviculture systems on the soil, Pora, fauna, visual amenity, and Umber production. Packard Publishing, Chichester Helliwell, D.R. ( 997) Dauerwald. Forestry, 70, 375-379. Kuper, J.H. (1997) Uneven ages in silviculture. Newsletter of the Continuous Cover Forestry Group, 1 0, January 1997, 8-9. Matthews, D. (1989) Silvicultural Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Norokorpi,Y., Lahde, E., laiho, 0., and Saksa,T (1997) Pro Silva- oriented silviculture in boreal forests. Poster paper produced for Pro SilvG Congress, Apeldoom, Netherlands, June 1997. |
|
The Nature Conservation Value of English Churchyards and Cemeteries; a short review. Anne
Cocking: (formerly) Nottingham University With
the increasing influecne of intensive farming and frestry practices and
of urbanisation of the British landscape, the loss of many wiildlife habitats
of significant conservation value has become critical. Losses of unimproved
grasslands nationally, for example, are estimatesd at over 97% of herb-rich
meadows since the 1950's (NCC, Anon1, 1984). Recent reports for the Peak
National Park (Buckingham, et al, 1998), have shown catastrpohic destruction
of hay meadows. In some parishes (urban and rural), the only grassland
that has not been ploughed up, sprayed with herbicide, or improved by
fertilser, is the local churchyard (Burnham and Stapleton, 1998). Interestingly,
encapsulated countryside in urban areas generally, may now hols significant
resources of unimproved grasslands and also extensive ancient woodlands
(Rotherham, 1996; Rotherham & Jones, 1998). It is sometimes possible to gain some indication of the former vegetation of a bhurial ground from the plant species which now occur. Some of the plants are present due to contemporary or recent, others amy be 'indicators' of antiquity (Rackham. 1986; Peterken, 1981). Typical iondicators of antiquity and environmental continuity such as Dog's mercury (Mercurialis perennis), wood anemone (Anemone nemorosa), and wood sorrel (Oxalis acetosella, for example, indicate former occurrence of 'ancient' woodland or perhaps old hedgerows. These 'relict' communities are important historical markers for the site, along with their intrincsic interest. Many chi=urchyards were enclosed form enclosed from grassland and often manages as hay meadows, and'or by grazing for centiries; oerhaps in accordance woth previous management, or possibly just as an easy way to control the vegetation. Evidence for this is seen in the many ornate graves with railing ariound them. These were designed to keep animals out, whilst poorer families pegged brambles or willows over newly-dug graves (Greenoak, 1985). Grazing managamenet is till practiced today; for example at Sherrif Hutton in Yorkshire, where they make hay (Wallis, 1995), and at Holy Trinity, Bradford, where they attempted to graze goats, but unfortunately without much success (Brown, 1995). Informal grazing also occurs, particularly by wild species such as rabbits and wild geese. The typical churchyard or cemetery contains many different habitat types. The headstones, boundary walls and buildings provide a valuable source of exposed rock, usulaly local stone and is especially attractive to wildlife. This provides habitat for lichens, ferns and higher plants such as stonecrops (Sedum sp.), ivy (Hedera helix) ivy-leaved toadflax (Cymbalaria muralis), along with associated invertibrates. Although eventually this community may succed to more woody plants, which could cause damage to a wall, these can be removed if necessary. The environment of exposed stone is particularly important to lowland counties in England which may have little naturally exposed rock (Cooper, 1995). Many such boundary walls increasingly provide niches for plants such as red valerian (Valeriana officinalis), diomestic snapdragon (Anthirrinum spp.), buddleija (Buddleija davidii), wall lettuce (Lactuca muralis) and fers, such as male fern (DRyopteris felix-mas) and, in more shady locations, hart's tongue (Phylitis scolopendrium) and wallrue (Asplenium meralis), etc. These are typical colonisers of such environ,ments as noted by Gilbert (1992). Many churchyards and cemeteries also contain mature trees which are a habitat for insects, birds and bats. This resource can be maximised by provision of bird and bat boxes. In addituion to grassland, some burial grounds also have woodland and hedges, wet areas, streams and ponds. These can all be managed to increase wildlife potential of the overall site. The church buildings themselves, may also harbour colonies of bats, swifts, and swallows. Although these can cause problems in terms of urine and droppings, they are alomst always welcomed (there have, of course, been some serious problems and the unfortunate damage to bat colonies through the inappropriate treatment of church roof spaces (R, Stebbins, pers. com.). There is also evidence of an additional (and perhapsunexpected) benefit to wildlife fronm church steeples, particularly those in prominenet locations, in that birds use them as navigational landmarks during migration (Burnham and Stapleton, 1988). Presumably, the birds are treating churches as significant and stable features, which are often deleiberatly prominent in the landscape, as long-distance markers (maybe their Christioan architects would have viewed them in a similar way?). Despite the range iof soils, climate and environmentaldiversity within burial grounds, they do have attributes that are chractersitic. In ancient burial grounds, the soil may have been thouroughly turned over and disturbed several times during its history; although the area between the graves may be relatively undisturbed. By their very nature, these sites may be very rich in nutrients and organic matter. The practice of placing plants and flowers on graves has introduced many exotic psecies intothese sites. These now reflect the human history of these sites and changes in trenda and fasions through the ages, adding a further conservation dimension. Burial grounds have always been an important community resource. Now, as always, this is very important. The sites are visited frequently by the bereaved, church-goers, historians, school children and peole seeking a place of quiet reflection. The future potential for nature conservation in burial grounds, clearly depends on the continued appreciation by the general public, and acceptance of naturew conservation as a fitting use for these areas, by both the public and the site managers. There may be further issues raised when former burial grounds cease their active 'useage' and are dissociated from a place of formal worship. The aim of this breif review is to highlight some of the potential importance ofburial grounds for wildlife, in both urban and rural settings. Five case studies are presented to demonstrate some of the contrasting situations, problems and opportunities that may occur. The management techniques, problems and conflicts will also be discussed. Case
Studies Highgate Cemetery, City of London. Situated in the London Borough
of Camdem, Highgate Cemetery comprises 7 hectares of woodlands' grassland
and pathways, carved out of fields and orchards in the 1830's (London
Ecology Unit, Anon. 1993). The soils range from London clay to Bagshot
sands, adding diversity to the natural flora, and the site is divided
into east and west sections by Swains Lane. The east section is famous
as the last resting place of Karl Marx (Cole, 1984). The site was landscaped
by David Ranisey (Yuille, undated) into a network of winding paths with
formal planting of exotic specimen trees, shrubberies and flower beds,
to suit the Victorian tastes. The legacy of this design continues to influence
the Cemetery today (London Ecology Unit, 1993). The Cemetery was owned
and run by the London Cemetery'Company until 1975, when failing profits
and the increased burden of maintenance forced its closure. At this point,
a group of concerned local residents formed the Friends of Highgate Cemetery
(FOHC) to campaign against the closure, and the probable outcome of the
cemetery being turned into public open space. They were concerned that
this would lead to the loss of much of its historical and ecological interest.
The aims of the FOHC include: 'to secure public access to, and enjoyment
of, the Cemetery (and) to conserve... the natural plant, animal and bird
life of the Cemetery and its surroundings'. The last doubts about the
future tenure of the Cemetery were removed in 1981, when the Friends secured
the freehold to both parts of the Cemetery (London Ecology Unit, 1993).
York Cemetery, City of York, Yorkshire Until the 1950's, York Cemetery had had a similar history to that of Highgate, both being consecrated at approximately the same time, and each run by a private cemetery company. York Cemetery is also divided into two halves: the Victorian (1 837-1900) and the Modern (post- 1900), each approximately 5 hectares in size and with its own distinct character. However, prior to being adopted by the Friends of York Cemetery in 1987, York Cemetery had been subjected to two decades of almost total abandonment and neglect. This included acts of deliberate vandalism, whilst the liquidators wound up the affairs of the York Cemetery Company. The York Cemetery Trust took over responsibility for the site in 1987, with the aims of providing access to public, promoting nature conservation and encouraging a range of educational activities for all ages. The education service is an important part,of the Friends activities, and York is the only cemetery in Britain to have an education service dedicated to producing worksheets and practical projects to be carried out in the grounds. Subjects studied include geology, Victorian history, World War 11 history, ecology, maths and orienteering. The involvement with, and appreciation of, the cemetery amongst the local community is very important in building good relations with local people, and giving the community a sense of ownership and having a stake in the Cemetery's future. This interest is fostered in a number of ways, including the work of the education service and the programme of informal guided walks, and individuals own experiences of the Cemetery through dog-walking, picnics etc. The Victorian chapel (a grade 11 listed building and still consecrated), is also available for hire for suitable purposes. York Cemetery contains a diverse range of habitat-types, from those such as the rockery, grassland, hedges and trees which were a part of the cemetery before its closure, to those recently created such as the butterfly walk, scented walk, lime-rich meadow, bluebell wood and ponds. Here, as at Highgate, habitat creation and the introduction of appropriate species has enriched the wildlife resource, and attracted many additional species to the site. Annual surveys since 1992, have recorded over forty species of birds (half breeding on site), and twenty-one species of butterflies. A range of small mammals is present, and foxes have also been known to visit (Bill Shaw, pers. comm.). The management plan for the site has been developed for the Trust by a local Horticultural College. The management techniques include: differential mowing regimes (the site being divided into areas of grassland, glades, meadows, lawns and paths); tree planting to create an open woodland environment; coppicing; hedge- trimming; and the treatment of persistent weeds. Many of the recommendations of the management plan are divided in to prescriptions for the Victodan and Modem sections of the Cemetery. Each half has its own distinct character, and this adds yet another level of diversity. For example, the Victodail section has winding and circular paths, with mature, exotic ornamental trees and large, mainly sandstone headstones (Askham Bryan Horticultural College, Anon.', 1994). This section also contains the scented and butterfly walks, a 'cottage garden' area and the chapel, and is well- used as a nesting place and feeding ground for birds and mammals. The new section contains straight walks, native tree plantings (post-1966) and a smaller marble and granite headstones. The rockery is located here. Burials still take place weekly in York Cemetery, so conflicts can arise between mourners (who wish to see graves set in 'orderly' surroundings), and the managers who aim to promote wildlife. This has been minimised by the introduction of a 'Grave Maintenance Scheme' offering a number of alternative maintenance arrangements to suit individual needs. The conservation of funerary buildings and monuments is also an important part of maintaining the Cemetery. This applies particularly to the two listed buildings (the Lodge and the Chapel). The management plan specifies that monuments and headstones with inscriptions should be left in situ providing a valuable historical record of the burials, and potential habitat for lichens and the invertebrates (Askham and Bryan Horticultural College, 1994). |
York
Cemetery is an example of sensitive and creative management of a large,
urban cemetery, which takes into account history, culture and ecology. The
educational programme is to be especially commanded.
Caunton Churchyard, Nottinghamshire Part of the churchyard of St. Andrew's, Caunton has been left as a conservation plot since 1993, and in 1995, won first prize in the Nottinghamshire County Council 'Village Wildlife Awards'. The management regime is similar to that of a hay meadow, with the first cut in March, then a second cut in June. The cuttings could then be made into hay, although the demand for such a small amount is low. It is made clear to visitors, that the plot is intentional and not just a product of accident or laziness; the boundary of the plot being clearly shown by the difference in sward height, and interpretative signs placed at the plot itself, and in the church porch. The area, situated on the banks of Caunton Beck, and shaded by willows (Salix sp.) and a cherry (Prunus sp.), is particularly important for spring flowers such as Lady's Smock (Cardamine pratensis) and cowslip, with cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris), bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), bluebell (Hyacynthoides non-scripta), herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), and gerrnander speedwell (Veronica chamaedris). Around thirty species of wild flower have been recorded (June Fielden, pers. comm.). Although many of the plants found here are generally widespread and common, others are declining. In providing a sanctuary, the churchyard is contributing, albeit in a small way, to the conservation of local biodiversity. Interestingly, within recent living memory, the whole churchyard was carpeted with Lady's Smock, and primroses and cowslips. Management outside the wildlife conservation area, has led to their loss from most of the site. Honley
Burial Ground,West Yorkshire
This is a large burial ground at Honley in West Yorkshire, associated with the church of St. Mary the Virgin, which has been gradually been abandoned to the processes of ecological succession, and getting more and more overgrown. Following a Churchyard Management Conference' organised by the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, the managers approached the Trust for guidance on churchyard conservation in general, and the potential of this burial ground in particular. A preliminary vegetation survey found approximately seventy species of vascular plant. The site contains several planted, mature trees, including copper beech (Fagus sp.), sycamore, yew (Taxus baccata), turkey oak (Quercus cerris), horse-chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), and whitebeam (Sorbus aria), and an area of mixed broadleaved woodland (presumably the result of natural succession, following localised abandonment). The vegetation over much of the burial ground is rank grass and scrub (especially in the areas between the older, less frequented graves). There is also an area of degenerate heathy vegetation with heather (Calluna vulgaris), heath bedstraw (Galium saxatile), and wavy hair-grass (Deschampsia flexuosa); an interesting contrast to the grass and scrub areas elsewhere in the burial ground, but in need of sympathetic management. The main problems faced by the managers of this site, are typical of many burial grounds: lack of finance, limited labour, and lack of conservation knowledge and skill. The stone wall needs regular attention and repair, and the chapel of rest also needs regular maintenance. The paths are trimmed by one man with a strimmer. Advisors from the Trust, suggested a management plan which would include the reversion of areas between the older graves to secondary woodland; the mowing of the heath area, between the heather plants, to prevent the heather and the heath bedstraw being out- competed by aggressive grasses; the planting of impenetrable species such as bramble and holly around the perimeter of the site to replace the stone wall as it deteriorates; and the encouragement of holly, hawthorn and ivy, to provide food and shelter for birds, mammals and insects. Possible funding was also discussed, including Rural Action grants, and local authority monies, to cover contributions towards equipment hire or purchase, labour, interpretative signs and other publicity materials. Many such grants place great emphasis on local community work to improve the local environment, and to provide educational and amenity benefits, especially for the young. This hopefully encourages managers to undertake conservation work to benefit these areas. The General Cemetery, Sharrow, Sheffield, South Yorkshire This site lies alongside the Porter Brook, one of Sheffield's main arterial watercourses. As well as a potential 'green corridor', the valley provides a major transport route, has substantial and dense, Victorian housing, and the riverside has been home to Sheffield industry for many centuries. The cemetery is a complex site with now two main areas, one the old Victorian Cemetery, and the other more recent and less spectacular. The Victorian Cemetery holds monuments and crypts associated with many people of great local, historical significance. Like Highgate in London, the site was owned and managed by a private company. As usable space in the cemetery reduced, and potential income diminished, the company closed down, leaving Sheffield City Council to carry on a minimal maintenance regime. Unfortunately, during its latter years, the company had carried out maintenance of vegetation mostly by chemical herbicides. When surveyed in the 1980's, by the Sorby Natural History Society and by the Sheffield City Ecology Unit, much of the area was rather species-poor, and had typical 'problem' species such as Japanese knotweed (Fallopiajaponica) and sycamore (Rotherham, 1986). In the mid-1980's, following public concern and outcry ------- local children breaking into crypts and vaults which were dramatically unstable (located on a rather steep hillside and often only weakly held together) and therefore of great potential danger, and emerging with various 'curios' and mementoes to be displayed publicly, Sheffield City Council took action. Armed with minimal finance, and limited awareness of the site's potential conservation and historical interest, but fuelled by public pressure, the City Council took steps to make the site safe. Local conservation groups, such as the then, Hallam Conservation Volunteers, the embryonic Sheffield City Wildlife Group, and others, expressed concern, but to little avail. The cemetery was 'made safe'. Substantial damage was done to the unique Victorian structure planting, the buildings on site were basically made safe but unusable, and the old, Victorian area, was made largely out-of-bounds to the public, but was still accessible to misuse. Large sweeps of the more modern cemetery were de-consecrated, and turned into an inner-city, short-mown park. The urgency to act, had meant little time for consultation, liaison, or long-term consideration. During the late 1980's and early 1990's, pressure was brought to bear by the Nether Edge Wildlife Group, the Sheffield Wildlife Trust, the Sheffield City Ecology Unit, and the emerging 'Friends of the General Cemetery'. This has resulted in a more people- and environment- friendly management regime, and the possibilities of restoring some or all, of the grand Victorian buildings to local community use. Much has now been achieved, but there is more to do. In nature conservation terms this is a very significant site. It is in a key part of a designated ecological corridor in the Sheffield Nature Conservation Strategy (Bownes et al., 1991). Perhaps even more important though, it is located in an inner city area of social and economic deprivation, and is one of the main green lungs for the local people. The potential significance of this is highlighted by George Barker's recent editorial paper in this journal (Barker, 1998). Interestingly here, attempts to re-introduce typical, local wildflower of woods and meadows, and appropriate changes in management regimes, appear to have been reasonably successful. The final message of the experience in Sheffield, is that the key to avoiding problems and conflicts, and to maximising opportunities, is partnership. (N.B. In this context, see also the paper by Geoff Cartwright, in this journal, 1998). Discussion This review has briefly considered ways in which wildlife conservation may be promoted in burial grounds, both urban and rural. It is clear that these sites provide not only a suitable place for nature conservation per se, but can be viable as local wildlife reserves, giving educational and recreational benefits to the local community. However, conflicts do exist. Some of the community feel that burial grounds are simply not the place for nature conservation. This is generally because: i) conservation plots look untidy, and reflect badly on the congregation. ii) headstones cannot he seen clearly and graves are inaccessible. o nature reserves are the place for nature conservation, not burial grounds. iii) conservation is somehow disrespectful to the dead. o wedding parties want short, tidy grass to appear in their photographs. o local gardeners get 'weed' seeds blown in from the burial ground. iv) the species found in the conservation area are common', and therefore not worth conserving. v) the conservation attempt creates more work for the churchyard managers. Sometimes these protests can be very vociferous, and the managers may decide to modify a conservation programme to accommodate the opinions of the protesters. This may result in a compromise acceptable to all parties, or in the worst case scenario, may lead to the abandonment of the conservation management. The conservation plot at Caunton for example, has been subject to such a protest, despite the recognition of the Nottinghamshire County Council Village Wildlife Award (June Fielden, pers. comm.). It may be difficult to solve these problems, especially in a churchyard where everyone in the parish can contribute to management decisions through the Parish Council and the Parochial Church Council. It may be important to define a conservation area which may be marked out by differential mowing, to show visitors that the area is cared for, and has been deliberately planned. Interpretative signs also help. Individual grave owners may wish to have a path cut to their grave for ease of access, and their wishes should be respected. However, as with many aspects of burial ground management, finance may be problematic. Few grave owners (and even fewer occupiers!) make any financial contribution to churchyard upkeep after the initial payment for the plot. Adequate survey and planning before the any conservation management is attempted, is also essential. A local forum may be set up to hear views and objections, and hopefully to resolve differences. Ultimately, opposition to specific nature conservation in churchyrads and cemeteries, may reflect views about nature conservation in general. Perhaps people are prepared to travel miles to a National Park or formal nature reserve, but are less appreciative of natural heritage on their own doorstep. Hopefully, environmental education initiatives such as Local Agenda 21 will help to change this. The long-term success of many conservation projects has yet to be fully evaluated. However, despite some problems, it seem that most conservation projects initiated in burial grounds in England have been successful, being sustained now for a number of years. Furthermore, cemetery sites managed by Trusts and groups of Friends have an element of management continuity and agreement amongst managers that may be lacking in a churchyard. The proportion of English burial grounds being managed with wildlife conservation in mind is not known. Assessment on this and monitoring of successful conservation projects, are needed to assess any appropriate action by organizations such as the Wildlife Trusts to promote sympathetic management. Co-operation between the Church authorities and nature conservation bodies is also important, as exemplified by the Living Churchyard {project (Parker, undated). This acts as a source of information and advice for churchyard managers. The project also co-ordinates the efforts in churchyard conservation nationally and produces a newsletter. Conclusions
Acknowledgements We wish to thank Bill Shaw for information about York Cemetery; Judith Yuille for information on Highgate Commentary and June Felden for comments on the conservation plot in Caunton Churchyard. Pat Brassley at Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and Richard Brown at Nottingham Wildlife Trust also gave information freely. Dr. Jack Reilly at Nottingham University suggested and supervised the small research project which Anne Cockering carried out as part of post-graduate degree References Anon 1 (1984) Nature Conservation in Great Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Shrewsbury, UK Anon2 (1993) Nature Conservation in Camden.London Ecology Unit. Anon3 (1994) Ecological Land Management Plan (for York Cemetary). Askham Bryan Horticultural College, York. Unpublished technical report. Barker, G. (1998) Natural Diversity and Human Needs in Englan's Urban Areas. Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation 2(2), 3-8 Bownes, J. S., Reilly, T. H., Rotherham, I. D., Vincent, S. M. (1991) Sheffield Nature Conservation Strategy. Sheffield City Council. Bown, D. F. (1995) Elegy in an Urban Churchyard. Yorkshire Wildlife News. September, 1995, pp 8-9 Buckingham, H., Chapman, J., Newman, R. (1997) Meadows Beyond the Millenium. Peak National Park, Bakewell, UK. Buckingham, H., Chapman, J., Newman, R. (1998) The Conservation of Haymeadows in the Peak District NationaPark. Landscape Archaeology and Ecology,3, 155-6 Burman, P., Stapleton, H. (1998) The Churchyards Handbook. Third edition, Church House Publishing, London Cartwright, G. (1998) Urban Nature Reserves: Don't Forget Homo Sapiens. The Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation. 2(1), 3-12. Cole, L. (1984) Wildlife in the City: A Study of Practical Conservation Projects. NCC, Peterborough. Cooper, N. (1995) Wildlife in Curch and Churchyard. Council for the Care of Churches, London Ellis, R. Gwynne (1993) Aliens in the British Flora. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. Gilbert, O. L. (1989) The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman & Hall, London. Gilbert, O. L. (1992) Rooted in Stone. English Nature, Peterborough |
|
Eco-bites |
|
Not applicable this issue
|
|
Eco-tones & Undertones |
|
Not applicable this issue
|
