The Effects of Browsing on Coppiced Scallops

Mike Rogers

This article reports the preliminary results of monitoring of browsing by mammals on the coppiced areas adjacent to the main east-west ride through Old Sulehay Forest. The Management Plan¹ produced when the site was purchased by the Wildlife Trust in 2001 includes the aim of ‘maintaining and enhancing the ride edge flora’ (Objective 5 p. 26). This aim was developed into a detailed plan to coppice ‘scallops’ going to the back of the wood bank. This plan was put into practice from the winter of 2001-2 and involves 1, 2, 4 and 8 year rotations on 20m lengths of ride edge. Each scalloped area is separated from the next by a 10m non-intervention area. The scalloped areas are staggered along opposite sides of the ride, so that they are only partly overlapping (see Website for details). Each scallop is marked by numbered posts, there being 56 scallops in all.

By spring 2003, 17 scallops had been cut. The extent of browsing in these scallops was assessed monthly from April – September 2003, with the exception of July. Browsing was quantified using a simple scale:

0 = totally browsed to the ground (or cut down by coppicing)

1 = only a few shoots growing

2 = partially browsed

3 = no browsing

The results are shown in the accompanying table. The table shows overall browsing for six common shrub species combined, namely hazel, spindle, sallow, hawthorn, blackthorn and field maple. Results are given for woodside and rideside separately. The dividing line was half way from the ride edge to the back of the woodbank, so ‘woodside’ includes the woodbank, ditch and near bank. Numbers in the table give sample size (number of coppice stools assessed in each scallop each month). The percentages indicate the extent of browsing using the above scale converted to a percentage figure. So 100% means no re-growth at all. 0% means unbrowsed re-growth.

Which side of the scallop was browsed more?

In all months, woodside showed considerably more browsing than rideside (see average figures on rhs of table). From June there was 2-3 times as much damage to woodside compared to rideside shrubs.

In which months did most browsing occur?

The high figures for April (75% overall) reflect the fact that little re-growth had occurred by that time. In May there was good re-growth and the average went down to 9%, ie very little browsing occurred when the shoots first formed. Browsing then steadily increased from June to September, especially on the woodside, reaching an average figure of 60% on the woodside and 25% on the rideside by September.

Which species were browsed most? [data on separate sheets not shown in this report]

The species to suffer most was definitely hawthorn. Hardly any (there weren't many anyway) have come back after being cut. My impression is that hazel suffered to a considerable extent, where only 50% of the coppice stools would probably survive. Spindle, sallow and field maple were in between. The main factor affecting plant damage appeared to be its location. On top of the bank against the wood was most affected, followed by top of bank ride side. In the ditch or near the ride was least affected. Also, strong growth of other plants around the subject plant was significant. This appeared to make it too difficult to get at for browsing. This was borne out by several examples of hazel and field maple; the plant might be fairly heavily grazed on one side where it was open to the woods, and undamaged on the other side where it was protected by surrounding bramble etc. Elder was not browsed at all and is excluded from the table of results. Old man’s beard also suffered little or no damage. There were also ash saplings and large numbers of ash seedlings later in the season. These too suffered little damage, as did the less common birch, honeysuckle and dogwood. There was also a small quantity of rose and oak, which suffered some damage.

What is doing the browsing?

Damage to some plants is close to the ground, and scallops 1 – 4 may be close enough to the surrounding fields for rabbits to visit. The greatest amount of damage was presumably caused by deer (muntjac and fallow both present).

Management implications

On scallops with a short cycle it is presumably not necessary to protect coppice stools as it is intended to keep the scalloped area as herbaceous vegetation. Where we have a longer clearing cycle then protection is needed for the species which suffer most damage. Temporary wire netting would ensure that protection is provided, but if it is considered sufficient just to reduce the level of browsing (rather than stop it altogether) it may be sufficient to surround the scallop (other than on the rideside) with dead branches.

Future studies

This monitoring method is fairly labour intensive and a simpler and quicker method is needed. Trials of different means of protecting regrowth would be useful.

1. Matt Jackson, July 2001. Old Sulehay Forest and Quarry Management Plan. The Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough.

Number of plants, and percentage damage covering Hazel, Spindle, Sallow, Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Field Maple
A plants is defined as 'damaged' if more than 75% of its shoots have been grazed - with continued grazing over a longer period, the plant is thought un-likely to survive.
(Note: where a scallop has no plants in the Woodside or Pathside boxes, the quatity box is greyed, and the related percentage is set to 50%)
	Scallop	1		2		3		4		5		8		9		10		11		12		13		14		16		20		34		40		43		Average All
03/04/2003	Woodside	23	74%	7	100%	10	100%	10	40%	5	100%	7	86%	6	100%	3	100%	7	100%	7	100%	6	100%	8	88%	3	100%	0	50%	3	100%	5	60%	10	100%	7	88%
	Pathside	13	92%	5	60%	11	73%	4	75%	1	100%	3	67%	9	89%	4	75%	6	83%	3	33%	4	75%	3	67%	5	60%	1	0%	1	0%	4	50%	4	0%	5	59%
	Both	36	81%	12	83%	21	86%	14	50%	6	100%	10	80%	15	93%	7	86%	13	92%	10	80%	10	90%	11	82%	8	75%	1	0%	4	75%	9	56%	14	71%	12	75%
06/05/2003	Woodside	22	9%	7	43%	12	58%	6	0%	6	67%	2	0%	7	0%	4	0%	7	0%	7	0%	4	0%	6	0%	3	0%	1	100%	4	0%	2	0%	10	0%	6	16%
	Pathside	10	10%	3	0%	12	25%	2	50%	7	14%	1	0%	4	0%	3	0%	4	0%	4	0%	3	0%	3	0%	5	0%	3	0%	0	50%	1	0%	4	0%	4	9%
	Both	32	9%	10	30%	24	42%	8	13%	13	38%	3	0%	11	0%	7	0%	11	0%	11	0%	7	0%	9	0%	8	0%	4	25%	4	0%	3	0%	14	0%	11	9%
17/06/2003	Woodside	18	17%	38	87%	13	31%	5	0%	8	63%	2	0%	8	0%	4	0%	5	0%	6	50%	5	40%	6	33%	4	25%	1	100%	1	100%	3	0%	9	89%	8	37%
	Pathside	11	0%	6	17%	10	30%	5	0%	9	11%	4	0%	9	0%	4	0%	5	20%	3	0%	3	0%	2	0%	2	0%	4	25%	0	50%	0	50%	3	0%	5	12%
	Both	29	10%	44	77%	23	30%	10	0%	17	35%	6	0%	17	0%	8	0%	10	10%	9	33%	8	25%	8	25%	6	17%	5	40%	1	100%	3	0%	12	67%	13	28%
01/08/2003	Woodside	19	32%	39	87%	16	81%	11	27%	7	71%	3	67%	8	0%	3	67%	9	78%	6	83%	4	50%	8	63%	4	50%	0	50%	2	50%	4	0%	10	80%	9	55%
	Pathside	6	17%	0	50%	22	36%	3	33%	11	18%	6	0%	10	0%	7	0%	6	17%	3	33%	3	33%	1	0%	4	0%	5	40%	0	50%	1	0%	9	0%	6	19%
	Both	25	28%	39	87%	38	55%	14	29%	18	39%	9	22%	18	0%	10	20%	15	53%	9	67%	7	43%	9	56%	8	25%	5	40%	2	50%	5	0%	19	42%	15	39%
05/09/2003	Woodside	18	44%	42	93%	13	100%	8	25%	7	100%	16	13%	6	0%	3	67%	9	78%	7	100%	5	60%	8	63%	2	50%	9	100%	0	50%	3	0%	15	87%	10	60%
	Pathside	13	8%	1	100%	20	40%	8	0%	15	40%	23	4%	11	0%	15	7%	7	14%	5	20%	5	20%	9	22%	4	25%	5	80%	0	50%	1	0%	5	0%	9	25%
	Both	31	29%	43	93%	33	64%	16	13%	22	59%	39	8%	17	0%	18	17%	16	50%	12	67%	10	40%	17	41%	6	33%	14	93%	0	50%	4	0%	20	65%	19	42%