Read on Twitter
I'm very much in support of allowing natural regeneration to occur. This article contains a few misleading statements though. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/15/restore-uk-woodland-trees-report-rewilding-britain
I haven't yet managed to read the report, by the way, and am only responding to the direct quotes from the chief executive of Rewilding Britain.
Does natural regeneration give you the 'right tree in the right place'? Not necessarily. You will get whatever seed sources are locally available. This doesn't mean that the natural forest type will be restored.
In many parts of the UK this means lots of birch, and for the time being, ash. Oak is unlikely to establish quickly without encouragement (not enough jays, too many deer). Other species are too scarce in the landscape to recover (small-leaved lime, hornbeam).
You're also going to get plenty of sycamore, which is an invasive in the UK. I don't carry a grievance against sycamore in the way that many habitat managers do, but don't assume that unmanaged succession means native species will ultimately dominate.
The comment about carbon emissions from planting on peat is a red herring. We all know - including foresters - that this is A Bad Thing. Natural afforestation on peat will still cause emissions, although not at the same scale because less soil disruption is involved.
Is there growing evidence that natural regeneration can sequester more carbon? I'm very sceptical here. If you want to take up carbon quickly then you should plant the fastest-growing trees. https://treesinspace.com/2020/04/01/what-trees-would-we-plant-to-maximise-carbon-uptake/
Of course carbon shouldn't be the only consideration: creating complex, diverse habitats dominated by broad-leaved trees is worth doing on its own merits. Bringing doubtful claims about carbon into it risks undermining the argument.
Perhaps an old-growth forest, developed over centuries, will hold more carbon than a coniferous plantation. But over a 50 year time-frame a quick-growing birch stand isn't going to come close. Not a criticism of birch, which I love, but let's not over-promise.
There are many great reasons to let natural afforestation take place, at least in some places. It's cheap and effective. It may need management and supplementary planting to guide it in the desired direction, but this is a minor intervention.
We mustn't over-promise though. To gain all the benefits from increased forest cover will require a portfolio of actions. This includes planting commercial timber. These are complementary activities, not rival approaches.
Incidentally, this experiment has run before. After WW2 many patches of marginal land were abandoned and 'tumbled down' to forest with little management. These stands are now 70-80 years old and give a good indication of what unplanned afforestation can look like.
