Mr Paterson and ancient woodlands

Hearing the news this morning that the Secretary of State for the Environment believes 'off-setting' ancient woodland loss can be made acceptable by planting a larger number of trees elsewhere had me fuming. I read an article on the BBC website, heard more on Radio 4 and felt compelled to go and buy a copy of the Times just so that I had the facts in front of me.

white Early Purple Orchid in an ancient wood

Ancient woodlands are irreplaceable, an undeniable fact. The Times is right to point out that these woods have been standing since at least the year 1600,  but in many cases they were standing at the time of Domesday and probably millenia before - back to the last Ice Age. Ely Cathedral was built 900 years ago - would you ever see proposals to put a high-speed rail-line through that? There have been some remarkable examples of habitat creation over the last 20 years (Lakenheath Fen or Wallasea for example), but you won't see a conservation NGO stepping forward to recreate an ancient woodland.

Not many bendy ash trees like this in a plantation are there?

The man on the street, perhaps understandably, may think it is a very sensible proposition  to plant x number of new trees for every tree lost from an ancient woodland, but that is an appalling simplification for such a rich and complex habitat. There are a wealth of plants that can only be found in ancient woodlands as well as animals that have a prediliction for old woods. Citing two local examples there is Limax cinereoniger (a slug) and Propolydesmus testaceus (a millipede). What about the soil structure and the inter-relations that holds with the flora growing from it?

Wind-thrown ash tree: 1800 species of invertebrate rely upon dead wood.

When it comes to avoidable habitat loss, there has to be a line in the sand. In my opinion ancient woodlands should be sacrosanct.

Herb-Paris: has a strict association with ancient woods

There is no smoke without fire and it would seem that Mr Paterson has sparked the flames already with what he has said in The Times today. It can not be so.