Globally rare temperate rainforests once covered most of western Britain, but now only pockets remain. Now a new restoration project will attempt to boost wildlife in the West Country.
Semantically, if you are planting a wood on the known site of an ancient wood, you are restoring an ancient wood. Though of course, it won’t be ancient woodland.
But it won’t be ancient any more; it won’t be in its former/original state. Maybe it will in a few hundred years though, we just need to give it some time.
It’s great they’re doing this, but it’s also important people understand that a 100 year old forest is not at all the same as a 1000 year old forest. The harm done by deforestation cannot be easily patched. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing of course - a new forest is still better than no forest, and especially if it is allowed to develop naturally.
Yeh, you are still deep in semantics. To make it clear - when England “restored” the monarchy it didn’t exhume Charles II and put him on the throne.
What is being restored here as far as possible restores the mixture of planting found in ancient wood land, on the site of ancient woodland. No-one is saying that the trees will be equivalent to 1,000 old trees, but yes the mixture and diversity of plantsbeing introduced will indeed attempt to mimic the diversity found in very old woods.
Thanks for the link! It’s a very interesting project indeed.
I got a bit lost in translation - in my native language, “ancient forest” would be pretty much a direct translation of an old-growth forest, which clearly cannot be restored as it is defined by the lack of human interference.
Semantics but you can’t restore an ancient wood, surely?
Semantically, if you are planting a wood on the known site of an ancient wood, you are restoring an ancient wood. Though of course, it won’t be ancient woodland.
Sounds like a recreation more than a restoration.
From Merriam Webster:
Sounds like meanings 2 or 3 pretty much hit the nail on the head
But it won’t be ancient any more; it won’t be in its former/original state. Maybe it will in a few hundred years though, we just need to give it some time.
It’s great they’re doing this, but it’s also important people understand that a 100 year old forest is not at all the same as a 1000 year old forest. The harm done by deforestation cannot be easily patched. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing of course - a new forest is still better than no forest, and especially if it is allowed to develop naturally.
Yeh, you are still deep in semantics. To make it clear - when England “restored” the monarchy it didn’t exhume Charles II and put him on the throne.
What is being restored here as far as possible restores the mixture of planting found in ancient wood land, on the site of ancient woodland. No-one is saying that the trees will be equivalent to 1,000 old trees, but yes the mixture and diversity of plantsbeing introduced will indeed attempt to mimic the diversity found in very old woods.
A useful resourcem if you are interested https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/protecting-trees-and-woods/ancient-woodland-restoration/
Thanks for the link! It’s a very interesting project indeed.
I got a bit lost in translation - in my native language, “ancient forest” would be pretty much a direct translation of an old-growth forest, which clearly cannot be restored as it is defined by the lack of human interference.