Threat to the ash tree

[Simon]

Glad to see you agree that what we need is a bit more anarchy.

If by "anarchy" you mean refusing to damage one's environment through blind obedience to nonsensical regulations, then I'm with you, for once.

But why not engage with the subject instead of trying to score points off me? You know you rarely manage it... vid. sop. ....

[Bryn]

Deluded as ever, I see, Simon. My position in this particular discussion has been, and remains that rather than trying to make political attacks on those tasked with dealing with the problem, we should recognise the history and particularity of the situation they (and we) were and are faced with. It's no real help running around shouting "it all their fault" when it is clear the nature of the disease was not fully grasped in the early stages of its spread through Europe. It is also not much use complaining about other European governments picking an choosing which international laws to abide by and then advocating one's own government follows suit. We have to operate in the real world, not some ideal one where international treaties are to be ignored at will.

[Simon]

Here's an update, specifically re Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20226831

Glad to see that the Department is not going to be "complacent"!

[umslopogaas]

To put my professional hat back on for a moment (just blew the dust off it after several years retirement), based on the distribution map for the disease I do not think there is the faintest possibility it can be eradicated. The government presumably feels it has to be seen to be making an effort, but they would be better advised to give up and save the money.

Eradication of newly introduced pests or diseases is possible when the crop area is small and the value high, eg for crops grown under glass. But when the value is low and the area huge, as is the case for ash, it just isnt feasible, it would cost far too much and the cost might exceed the economic value of the crop (I agree that ash has ecological and aesthetic value too, but these are very difficult to price).

No, I am sure we are going to have to learn to live with it and hope that there are some resistant trees out there that will survive and recolonise.

Re. international quarantine regulations, we sign up to them because we recognise their value. It is perhaps a British characteristic that we are then more scrupulous in observing them than some of our international partners, but I'm not ashamed of that.

[Anna]

A very gloomy report here in The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9661426/Young-ash-trees-burned-as-infection-spreads-to-115-sites.html

[Simon]

I was interested to read in the DT article that over a few years, we have imported about 5 million ash trees into the UK. Now, I have never seen any problem growing ash trees - in fact, they come up regularly all over the place in the garden, and I must have pulled out 50 odd this year alone. There are hundreds in the fields and woods nearby.

So, if they grow so well in the UK, why are we importing them in the first place?

Can our two experts here answer that for me, perhaps?

[umslopogaas]

I presume there is considerable genetic variation in ash over its full range, and the continental ones could have some desirable characteristics that ours dont. For example, in commercial forestry there is high value placed on the length of main trunk (the most valuable bit) before the first branches, and that is under genetic control. There could well be timber characteristics (eg. straight grain) as well.

Mind you, it would have been a lower risk strategy to introduce a few prize specimens under strict quarantine, then multiply them up to provide our own superior germplasm resource. But that would take more time. Caution and commercial gain are often in opposition.

[David-G]

To put my professional hat back on for a moment (just blew the dust off it after several years retirement), based on the distribution map for the disease I do not think there is the faintest possibility it can be eradicated. The government presumably feels it has to be seen to be making an effort, but they would be better advised to give up and save the money.

Eradication of newly introduced pests or diseases is possible when the crop area is small and the value high, eg for crops grown under glass. But when the value is low and the area huge, as is the case for ash, it just isnt feasible, it would cost far too much and the cost might exceed the economic value of the crop (I agree that ash has ecological and aesthetic value too, but these are very difficult to price).

No, I am sure we are going to have to learn to live with it and hope that there are some resistant trees out there that will survive and recolonise.

Re. international quarantine regulations, we sign up to them because we recognise their value. It is perhaps a British characteristic that we are then more scrupulous in observing them than some of our international partners, but I'm not ashamed of that.

That being the case, I am inclined to agree with those experts who have criticised the destruction of trees to try to contain the outbreak, on the grounds that naturally resistant specimens will be destroyed along with all the others, thus reducing the possibility of eventual regeneration through natural resistance.

[Simon]

That makes sense!

[Serial_Apologist]

Caution and commercial gain are often in opposition.

Of course, that applies to so many things regarding our supposedly superior way of doing things. I couldn't have put it better or more succintly, umslopogaas.

[Lateralthinking1]

I have just returned from a quick walk through the local woodland. It is managed by the Woodland Trust. To my dismay, I read on the sign that the trees are mainly ash and hazel coppice. Height is achieved mainly from the former. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. I think an earlier article that was posted suggested there are 90m ash trees.

I have steered clear of news reports about Denmark. I don't want to know what devastation looks like. I have also decided that entering into discussion about Government policy to date is futile. What I do want to know is what I as an ordinary member of the public can do. I don't want this turning into a building developer's dream, particularly locally. I also like greenery in its own right.

And I'm starting to seriously question whether the "don't plant replacement trees" idea is credible. Yes, I know the traditional arguments. They are put forward here on the website of the Surrey Hills Conservation Volunteers:

http://www.shcv.co.uk/page10.php?category=3&pageNum=15

This though is an unprecedented situation. There are some places in the country where 50,000 trees are being planted anyway. It seems to me that if there isn't a national strategy to do much the same across the country as a response to this impending crisis, we will be sleepwalking into a nightmare. So I think that the conservationists need a rethink and must then start lobbying urgently.

[Richard Tarleton]

I have just returned from a quick walk through the local woodland. It is managed by the Woodland Trust. To my dismay, I read on the sign that the trees are mainly ash and hazel coppice. Height is achieved mainly from the former. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. I think an earlier article that was posted suggested there are 90m ash trees.

I have steered clear of news reports about Denmark. I don't want to know what devastation looks like. I have also decided that entering into discussion about Government policy to date is futile. What I do want to know is what I as an ordinary member of the public can do. I don't want this turning into a building developer's dream, particularly locally. I also like greenery in its own right.

And I'm starting to seriously question whether the "don't plant replacement trees" idea is credible. Yes, I know the traditional arguments. They are put forward here on the website of the Surrey Hills Conservation Volunteers:

http://www.shcv.co.uk/page10.php?category=3&pageNum=15

This though is an unprecedented situation. There are some places in the country where 50,000 trees are being planted anyway. It seems to me that if there isn't a national strategy to do much the same across the country as a response to this impending crisis, we will be sleepwalking into a nightmare. So I think that the conservationists need a rethink and must then start lobbying urgently.

Lats - do you mean you'd like to see planting on areas currently occupied by ash, or planting on "bare" ground?

[Serial_Apologist]

The main objection on the Surrey Hills Conservation Volunteers site seems based on 3 main arguments:

1) natural regenerations occurs more rapidly then planting semi-mature specimens;
2) semi-mature specimens may not correlate to existing ecosystems; and
3) planting one-offs are often not followed up with care and maintenance.

I would argue a third position, counterbalancing on the one hand "community input" benefits (eg the "ceremonial by association" significance in terms of nurturing longterm concerns among the populace: "That's the tree I/we planted which will outlive me/us") attaching to "interventionist planting", and the need to maintain initial success in perpetuity through the associated sense of individual/communal "ownership"; and on the other natural regeneration as recomended by SHCV. I would see the two approaches as mutually enhancing, rather than exclusive.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lats - do you mean you'd like to see planting on areas currently occupied by ash, or planting on "bare" ground?

In areas currently occupied by Ash. At this time of year particularly, there feels like a lot of space. I walked on a flat part that looks almost like a tree covered scrub land although in the spring bluebells etc are abundant. Elsewhere, we have hills. Steep ones covered with trees that are beautiful at all times of the year and which I fear could become barren vistas. Clearly new trees should be suited to the environment but, if the ash is going to go anyway, I am not sure any new ones need to be compatible with ash?

On Serial_Apologist's point, I am mainly concerned here about what happens in my lifetime - I can't live without nice looking green spaces and become upset, and indeed uncomfortable, when they disappear - although on climate change I take the long view. In fact, nowadays, and I used to attend concerts in Brixton etc, I wouldn't walk about in the middle of the night in an urban area but I frequently walk through woodland at 3am in the morning to feel calm and am more at ease there than during the daytime.

[Serial_Apologist]

In areas currently occupied by Ash. At this time of year particularly, there feels like a lot of space. I walked on a flat part that looks almost like a tree covered scrub land although in the spring bluebells etc are abundant. Elsewhere, we have hills. Steep ones covered with trees that are beautiful at all times of the year and which I fear could become barren vistas. Clearly new trees should be suited to the environment but, if the ash is going to go anyway, I am not sure any new ones need to be compatible with ash?

On Serial_Apologist's point, I am mainly concerned here about what happens in my lifetime although on climate change I take the long view.

After the demise of one or any number of trees there is always a "natural interregnum" period, during which plants that have been "in suspension" owning to lack of sufficient light exposure during the growth season suddenly spring into life. At the same time, previously stunted types (such as the spindly rowans and other types that seem fated not to grow much under the canopy) undergo accelerated growth. For any woodland frequenter, the disappointment associated with the passing of mature trees can be offset by the appearance of much greater diversity that has been suspended - not just flora but associated fauna. The, ahem, natural order is not going to "object" to people who behold this apparent miracle of regeneration coming in to plant the odd Xmas tree and saying a prayer or two to the Great Wood Spirit, while festooning it with pagan trinkets from Grandma's treasurebox* - or, better still, a robust native species!

*That happened in Essex - probably not appropriate to attribute such bewitchery to the good folk of Surrey!