Creating new woodlands in the UK poses significant challenges, according to new research from The University of Manchester. The study, led by Dr. Matthew Dennis, advocates for a more strategic approach to woodland restoration, urging policymakers to prioritise protocols focused on nature recovery rather than opportunistic land acquisition.
In an article published by Policy@Manchester, Dr. Dennis highlights the current state of native broadleaf woodland in the UK, which covers just 14.5% of the land area compared to 40% across Europe. With government targets aiming to increase this figure to 17% by 2030, the task ahead appears daunting.
Dr. Dennis, a Senior Lecturer in Geographical Information Science, notes that ongoing debates in landscape ecology revolve around the necessity of large, intact habitats for effective nature conservation. There is a divide among scientists regarding whether larger, connected patches or smaller, more numerous habitats are more beneficial for preserving biodiversity.
“Historically, habitat design has advocated for a bigger, better, and more connected approach, based on principles from island biogeography and landscape ecology,” Dr. Dennis explains. “However, recent research has created a rift, with some experts supporting the prioritisation of larger areas while others argue for the advantages of fragmentation, which could potentially increase species richness.”
Dr. Dennis points out that embracing either viewpoint could constrain planners and landscape managers in their efforts to restore nature through woodland creation. Understanding which approach—large, connected woodlands or fragmented patches—yields better results for nature recovery is essential for effective resource allocation.
The findings of the study, conducted through the University of Manchester’s CASTOR project, reveal that the ability of woodlands to support biodiversity is significantly influenced by the intensity of surrounding land use. The research focused on woodland mammals, a group particularly vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation.
“We observed that in regions of the Northern Forest landscape dominated by grassland or where urban and arable land cover was minimal, the larger, more connected approach did not yield the anticipated results,” Dr. Dennis notes.
Another critical finding was the homogenising impact of arable land use, which correlated with reduced land-cover diversity and diminished mammalian species richness.
Dr. Dennis argues that these insights should be integrated into planning policies, particularly for large-scale landscape restoration efforts. “A diverse range of woodland creation strategies should be adopted, and simply acquiring land for reforestation should not dominate restoration plans,” he stresses.
He further suggests that restoration strategies should be tailored to the landscape context. In grassland areas, opportunistic planting of new woodlands may be suitable, and the establishment of woodlands of any size should be encouraged. Conversely, in more challenging environments, such as heavily urbanised areas, resources should be directed towards creating large, well-connected woodland patches to ensure the success of nature recovery initiatives.
The full study, titled ‘Rooting for effective reforestation: landscape context and woodland cover’ is available on the Policy@Manchester website, shedding light on the complexities of woodland restoration in the UK and offering a framework for more effective approaches.