|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
Green Man
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 5272 Location: Rural Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
12Bore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008 Posts: 9089 Location: Paddling in the Mersey
|
|
|
|
|
Green Man
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 5272 Location: Rural Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
12Bore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008 Posts: 9089 Location: Paddling in the Mersey
|
|
|
|
|
Duckhead
Joined: 24 Oct 2009 Posts: 2069 Location: Up the hill, Italy
|
|
|
|
|
vegplot
Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 21301 Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd
|
|
|
|
|
Nick
Joined: 02 Nov 2004 Posts: 34535 Location: Hereford
|
|
|
|
|
KILLITnGRILLIT
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 894 Location: Looking at a screen in the front room
|
|
|
|
|
Archanejil
Joined: 09 Aug 2010 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 10 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
Many of the moorlands have been about for several thousand years although they are (largely) a man-made habitat, most being made between 18,000 and 6,000 years ago.
Having said that, they're a big part of our landscape and afforestation isn't always a good thing. Sure, you could plant things on it, change the habitat, but then you'd destroy a lot of habitats that birds and insects in particular would be drawn to. Is it a good thing to plant up areas that have been a certain way for 6,000 years? I really don't think so, to be honest.
There are quite a few species that are only or mainly found on moorlands and heath -- hen harriers and adders, for example, are both endangered species and found only on moorlands. Sure, they get trapped on the grouse managed moorlands, but they do persist there at least. They're not the only ones -- they're just the two that spring to mind, bearing in mind that moorlands can support some fairly rare plants and creatures. There are quite a lot of small mammals on moorlands already. As for deer... more deer are not necessarily a good thing. In fact, the impact of deer grazing on the woodlands in Scotland is of quite a bit of concern at the moment, so they're researching it. In sufficient numbers, deer have a habit of eating everything that's not tasty, which can actually end up being damaging to the forest in the long run.
As for whether or not it's worth a slight boost in biodiversity... There are several papers around that break down the economic worth attributable to particular areas. Many moorlands have blanket bogs and wetlands on them, which act as carbon stores which may be realeased if trees are planted on them. Plenty of drinking water is also held and filtered in these areas -- forests tend to use more water than bogs and wetlands. Bogs and wetlands just hold it. Moorlands are also fantastic places for wind-turbines (the really big ones) because very few folks live on moors to be bothered hugely by them. And they are very, very windy places. Windfarms can't be put by forests as the wind may be blocked and will become turbulent.
That's already a small essay -- but I figured as I wrote a rather large essay on this subject earlier this year, I'd throw in my 2p. |
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
KILLITnGRILLIT
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 894 Location: Looking at a screen in the front room
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 10 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
dpack wrote: |
as the last two posts ,my local moors have been ......most moors are the result of farming (some are remnants of ice ace tundra /glacial edge )but the change from mixed to sheep and grouse has produced the heather moors we know now ,quite pretty but not very biodiverse compared to the wild (if somewhat damp)wood of 10000 yrs back |
Not a dig, but how far do we need to go back, 1 000, 2 000, 10 000, 1million, 6 million, 1 billion.........
Times change and animals survive or decline due to one pressure or another, how about we just get on with what we have or all go back 10 000 years ? |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
Green Man
Joined: 23 Jul 2006 Posts: 5272 Location: Rural Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
|