Skip to main content

Abstract

A few years ago I gave a lecture on coppicing which started as follows:

Coppicing is widely regarded as a conservation panacea resulting in high structural diversity and species diversity but it can also be viewed as producing a dwarf uniform even-aged biologically impoverished nutrient-depleted woodland. Which view is correct?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ash, J.E. and Barkham, J.P. (1976) Changes and variability in the field layer of a coppiced woodland in Norfolk, England. Journal of Ecology 64, 697–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.H.F. (1981) The recovery of ground vegetation in coppice wood: the significance of buried seed, in Forest and Woodland Ecology ITE Symposium 8 (eds F.T. Last and A.S. Gardiner), Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Cambridge, pp. 41–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.H.F. and Oosterhuis, L. (1981) The role of buried seed in coppiced woods. Biological Conservation 21, 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cressy, J. (1987) Ecology and conservation of cow wheat MSc thesis in Conservation, University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flegg, J.J.M. and Bennett, T.J. (1974) The birds of oak woodlands, in The British Oak: its history and natural history(eds M.G. Morris and F.H. Perring) Botanical Society of the British Isles, E.W. Classey, Faringdon, pp. 324–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, E.D. and Newbould, P.J. (1977) The biomass and production of ground vegetation and its relation to tree cover through a deciduous woodland cycle. Journal of Ecology 65, 201–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, R.J., Stuttard, P. and Ray, C.M. (1989) The distribution of breeding songbirds within mixed coppiced woodland in Kent, England, in relation to vegetation age and structure. Annales Zoologicii Fennici 26, 265–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, F.B. (1983) Evaluating nature, in Conservation in Perspective(eds A. Warren and F.B. Goldsmith), Wiley, Chichester, pp. 233–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, F.B. (1988) Threats to woodland in an urban landscape: a case study in Greater London. Landscape and Urban Planning 16, 221–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, F.B. (1991) The selection of protected areas, in The Scientific Management of Temperate Communities for Conservation (eds I. Spellerberg, F.B. Goldsmith and M.G. Morris), Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp. 273–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, P.L. and Kirby, K.J. (1989) Ecological Effects of Forestry Practices in Long-established Woodland and their Implications for Nature Conservation Oxford Forestry Institute Occasional Paper 39, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterken, G.F. (1977) Habitat conservation priorities in British and European woodlands. Biological Conservation 11, 223–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterken, G.F. (1981) Woodland Conservation and Management Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rackham, O. (1976) Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape Dent, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, D.A. (1977) A Nature Conservation Review Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, E.J. (1924) The effects of coppicing as illustrated by the woods of Hertfordshire. Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society 18, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simms, E. (1971) Woodland BirdsCollins, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, P.H. and Hambler, C. (1988) Coppicing for conservation: do hazel communities benefit? In Woodland Conservation and Research in the Clay Vale of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire (eds K.J. Kirby and F.J. Wright) Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, pp. 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.S. (1985) The influence of shade on butterfly numbers in woodland rides, with reference to the wood white Leptidea sinapsis Biological Conservation 33, 147–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.S., Thomas, C.D. and Thomas, J.A. (1984) The status of the heath fritillary butterfly Mellicta athalia Rott., in Britain. Biological Conservation 29 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goldsmith, F.B. (1992). Coppicing — a conservation panacea?. In: Buckley, G.P. (eds) Ecology and Management of Coppice Woodlands. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2362-4_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2362-4_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5042-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-2362-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics