The Historical Background to the Study of Natural History in the Manchester Region - Part 2

This is the second installment of my series on the study of natural history locally. Some of you may have noticed the weird formatting of the last few posts on here. Google seem to have made some changes to their system which technically challenged people, like me, are struggling with. If there are any techies out there who could help - please get in touch.

Anyway, in the last post I described the meeting between Richard Buxton and John Horsefield on Kersall Moor and how this led Buxton to be inducted into the Artisan Botanist Movement

There is evidence for the existence of a botanical society, in Newton Heath, as early as
1750 and the Eccles and Oldham Botanical Societies were founded in the mid-1770s. In the 1790s George Caley, a farrier from Middleton, John Mellor , a handloom weaver from Royton, John Dewhurst, a fustian cutter of Red Bank and James Crowther, the Manchester porter referred to above, began to meet in pubs and exchange information about their shared passion for plants.

Incidentally, Caley (1770 – 1829) had developed his interest in botany as a result of
exploring the herbal remedies used to treat horses. He corresponded with the distinguished botanist, Sir Joseph Banks who subsequently obtained work for him at Kew and other gardens. Eventually Banks appointed Caley as a botanical collector in New South Wales from where he regularly sent specimens back to Banks together with information about the colony. He added greatly to knowledge of the colony and his botanical specimens constituted a valuable contribution to science.

As the 19^th century progressed the various botanical societies began to adopt a broadly common form and mode of operation. They continued to meet in pubs but members paid a monthly membership fee and part of the accumulated funds was used to purchase reference books. Members were also obliged to bring plant specimens to meetings and these were named, by the particular society’s president, in front of the assembled membership. Members could be fined if they failed to bring plants to a meeting, used foul language, stole specimens or arrived drunk. These meetings were not ‘dry’ though. The publican supplied the room and looked after the society’s library and ‘box’ (of funds). In return he expected the members to spend a reasonable amount on drink in compensation for his trouble (the ‘wet rent’). To the botanists the local
pub was the obvious and natural place to meet. James Crowther remarked that, “my specimens always look best through a glass!”

However some of the botanists’ contemporaries, from further up the social scale, disapproved
of their meeting in pubs. Their main objections were based on the fact that the botanists tended to hold their meetings in pubs on a Sunday (usually their only day of rest); the increasing importance, as the 19^th century progressed, of the temperance movement; and also that pubs tended to be associated with political radicalism. In the decades following the Napoleonic Wars economic turmoil adversely affected and radicalised many working people – particularly in the manufacturing districts. We don’t know how many of the botanist were political radicals but we do know that two of them, Edward Hobson and John Dewhurst, narrowly escaped arrest for their
political activities in 1812. It is known that John Horsefield was a witness to the Peterloo Massacre, in central Manchester in August 1819, and was interested in politics for most of his adult life (although he never joined a political party).

The Manchester author and botanist, Leo Grindon, in his book, ‘Manchester Walks and
Wild Flowers’, defended the artisan botanists’ use of pubs for their meetings in the following passage:

“The meetings ... are held upon a Sunday afternoon, at some respectable tavern, such being
the only place where working men can assemble inexpensively; and though this may seem to some persons detrimental to good order and sobriety, no religious service was ever more decorously conducted.”

In the same book Grindon provided pen portraits of some of the more prominent artisan botanists.

For example George Crozier (d. 1847), a saddler of Shude Hill, was, “... a well-built, portly man, quiet but merry, fond of a joke and a good story, mild and gentle, yet thoroughly independent ...”

In addition:

“Great as was his botanical information, he excelled in a still higher degree as an entomologist and ornithologist; he was acquainted with the shape and habits of every bird and every butterfly, every branch of his knowledge helping him to enlarged success in the prosecution of the others, botany aiding entomology, and entomology facilitating botany. It was his extensive and accurate knowledge of plants that rendered him so expert in finding rare insects, being aware what species the latter feed upon, and familiar with their forms.”

Grindon also recalls an excursion with Crozier, in 1839, to a peat bog, near Blackley,
called White Moss:

“Never shall we forget the genial smile that rippled old George Crozier’s broad, round,
rosy, white-fringed face as ... we stepped with twenty or more under his guidance for the first time upon the elastic peat, and beheld the andromeda and the pink stars of the cranberry, these also for the first time. To Crozier the pretty flowers were as familiar as the hills; ... Among the more remarkable insects then to be captured on White Moss were the showy beetle called Carabus nitens; ... the fox-moth, Lasiocampa rubi, so called from its peculiar foxy colour; and the emperor-moth, Saturnia
pavonia ...”

Dave Bishop, February 2012

The Historical Background to the Study of Natural History in the Manchester Region - Part 1

For some years now I have been interested in this subject and have been collecting information on it. At a time when (what remains of) our region's natural environment is under threat as never before it's rather sad to reflect on how much that natural environment meant to a section of that same region's population in the past. I'm sure that the old naturalists would have been horrified by the wanton destruction going on today, even though many of them lived at the height of the Industrial Revolution - when the natural environment was merely there to be poisoned and polluted in the name of profit. In their day, in the market economy of the time, nature had zero value. In our day all sorts of fancy policies and 'Biodiversity Action Plans' get written but, in reality, nature still has zero value - and our market economy has lots of bigger and 'better' tools to destroy it with.

This series will be in three or four parts (I haven't decided how many yet). I'll add a list of sources to the last part. After that I'm planning to add an indeterminate number of 'notes and digressions' which will allow me to add detail and to expand and amplify some of the subjects raised in the main text.

I hope that you enjoy this material as much as I do and are as intrigued by it as I am.

Elizabeth Gaskell’s novel, ‘Mary Barton’ is set in the Manchester of the 1840s. Chapter 5
begins thus:

“There is a class of men in Manchester, unknown even to many of the inhabitants, and whose
existence will probably be doubted by many, who yet may claim kindred with all the noble names that science recognises. I said ‘in Manchester’, but they are scattered all over the manufacturing districts of Lancashire.”

The passage goes on to state that:

“... the more popularly interesting branches of natural history have their warm and devoted
followers among this class. There are botanists among them, equally familiar with either the Linnaean system or the Natural system, who know the name and habitat of every plant within a day’s walk from their dwellings ... There are entomologists, who may be seen with a rude looking net, ready to catch any winged insect, or a kind of dredge, with which they rake the green and slimy pools; practical, shrewd, hard-working men, who pore over every new specimen with real scientific delight.”

A character in the novel, named Job Legh, is thought to represent a sort of composite of the real-life local amateur naturalists of that time. Mrs Gaskell describes Job Legh’s room thus:

“... the whole room looked not unlike a wizard’s dwelling. Instead of pictures, were hung rude wooden frames of impaled insects; the little table was covered with cabalistic books; and a case of mysterious instruments lay beside ...”

The author also relates an anecdote from the life of Sir James Edward Smith, who travelled
to Manchester in search of a rare plant. He had been directed to consult a handloom weaver in Manchester. Sir James asked his porter if he could direct him to the weaver and it then

transpired that not only did the porter know the weaver-botanist, but was a knowledgeable botanist himself.

It is now known that the porter was James Crowther (1768 – 1847) of Hulme who, among
other accomplishments, contributed to the Manchester physician, John Hull’s ‘British Flora’ of 1799 and John Bland Wood’s ‘Flora Mancuniensis’ of 1840. Crowther appears to have been something of an exuberant ‘free spirit’. He would frequently walk 15 or 20 miles after work in search of plants. At Whitsun he would receive an annual week’s holiday and would walk to the ‘Craven’ district of Yorkshire (i.e. The Yorkshire Dales) so that he could botanise there. Gamekeepers frequently mistook him for a poacher and he had several narrow escapes. On one of his Yorkshire expeditions he was charged by a “savage bull” but managed to scramble to the top of a dry-stone wall before it could trample him.

One of Crowther’s contemporaries was Richard Buxton (1786 – 1865) of Ancoats. Buxton’s
father had been a farmer near Prestwich, but had experienced money problems and sold the farm and moved his family to Ancoats where he became a labourer for the rest of his life. Because of these difficulties Richard received only a cursory formal education and was apprenticed into the Bat trade at the age of 12 (bats were children’s leather shoes). As a small child Richard had been fascinated by the wild flowers which he found in the fields and brick pits around his home.
His first master, James Heap, was an amateur herbalist (a ‘yarb doctor’ in the local dialect) and on Sundays would walk out into the countryside to gather wild plants from which he would make ‘diet drinks’ (probably herbal tonics) for his neighbours. Heap would take Richard on these expeditions which reinforced his interest in plants.

In his teens Buxton became frustrated by his illiteracy and so taught himself to read and write. He then went on to study botany, starting with ‘Culpepper’s Herbal’ and moving on to other books when he could afford to purchase them. In time he became a highly skilled botanist and eventually published a flora of the Manchester region which ran to two editions. He prefaced his flora with an autobiographical sketch, from which the account above was taken, and which I
believe to be an important social document.

In 1826, while botanising on Kersall Moor in Salford, Buxton had a chance meeting with a
man named John Horsefield , a handloom weaver from Besses O’th’ Barn near Prestwich and President of the Prestwich Botanical Society.

Horsefield (1792 – 1854) too was self-educated. As a young man he had read James Lee’s
‘Introduction to Botany’ (1760) wherein he had first encountered the twenty four classes of the Linnaean system. Determined to learn these classes by heart he had written them on a sheet of paper which he had pinned to his loom-post,” so that when seated at my work, I could always have opportunities of looking it over”.

The meeting between these two men served to induct Buxton into a network of artisan botanist societies spread throughout South Lancashire.

Dave Bishop, February 2012

Drip, Drip, Drip ... The Destruction of local Biodiversity

If you’ve been down to Jackson’s Boat recently you will see that this, once tranquil and popular, beauty spot is being transformed forever. Soon a large bridge will span the river and Metrolink trams will regularly thunder (sorry, ‘glide’ completely soundlessly) across it.

Contractors working for Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) have carved a great swathe through the Lower Hardy Farm Site of Biological Importance (SBI). To be quite honest this breaks my heart. I have
been fascinated by this little patch of ground for nearly 40 years now and I am convinced that, because of its unique plant life, it should have been one of the most important SBIs in the Mersey Valley. There has been little focus on what has been destroyed on the other side of the river – but I expect the damage to be severe.

TfGM have a ‘Wildlife and Tree Replacement Policy’ (http://www.tfgm.com/) within which they state:

“In carrying out its development programmes TfGM recognises an obligation to conserve, protect, and where possible, enhance the natural environment and to mitigate the impact on biodiversity and therefore to protect important wildlife habitats and to take full account of new developments on
wildlife itself. In addition management and after-care arrangements should be put in place for new habitats to ensure they remain safe, attractive and good for wildlife in the longer term, balanced with the need to provide sustainable public transport.” Note the caveats!

So far I see little evidence that TfGM, or, more importantly, their contractors could care less about wildlife. We’ve seen a couple of ponds constructed, using cheap pond liners, and some, shockingly
inept, tree planting ... and that’s about it (lots of careless destruction though!) Presumably all that TfGM feel that they have to do now is to tick a couple of boxes and to rate themselves “Excellent” on the BREEAM scale (don’t ask!)

Recently, I was talking to Marc Hudson of the Manchester Climate Review (http://manchesterclimatemonthly.net/). Marc informed me that he was intending to interview Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council, and invited me to suggest a question to put to Sir Richard on the subject of biodiversity. Here’s the result:

“Biodiversity – a questions from Dave Bishop, who helps run Friends of Chorlton Meadows; “Given that developers and their developments have now ‘concreted over’ so many of our remaining green spaces, where is all the wildlife going to live?”

First of all, developers haven’t concreted over so many of our green spaces. Sorry Dave, we are going to build Metrolink to Wythenshawe and the Airport, and it does mean crossing the Mersey Valley(my
italics). Of course, there is a whole history of railways and similar developments protecting wildlife rather than destroying it – creating wildlife corridors because nobody goes on them. I know someone’s found rare orchids on the railway at Crumpsall. So those aren’t necessarily blots for diversity. If you look at what we’re working on for designs for new housing areas and so on, we are increasingly taking the best practice – mainly from Northern Europe – in terms of how we increase green, water management… increasingly within green spaces it won’t all be sculptured lawns and so. We have a greater use of tree
planting species that will encourage insects and birds and so on. I think there is an awful lot going on, including the recently revised Biodiversity Strategy, which is maximising the use of the green space we have, and also recognises that wildlife doesn’t always behave the way we think it ought to. Urban foxes –
are there more of them or not. Lots of people say it’s just about the same as it’s always been, it’s just that we see them more.

But no, we’re not concreting over everything, and we are planting – particularly trees – vast amounts of the city on a year-by-year basis.”

First, I have to thank Sir Richard for taking the time to answer my question. Second, I can’t help feeling that I must have done something right for Sir Richard to actually know who I am and what I stand for!

But I also can’t help but note that Sir Richard’s answer contains quite a bit of ‘hand waving’. Yes, railway lines can act as wildlife refuges – but old abandoned railway lines are even better – and we’ve now lost those to Metrolink! He may not be aware, though, that the whole ‘wildlife corridor’ hypothesis has recently been called into question (but I’ll leave that for another blog post).

More worryingly there’s the usual over-reliance on tree planting as some sort of ‘universal panacea’ for biodiversity loss. Way back in 1986 Dr Oliver Rackham, one of our greatest experts on the British countryside, wrote: Too much attention, and too much money, goes into the unintelligent planting of trees. Tree-planting is not synonymous with conservation; it is an admission that conservation has failed.” (‘The History of the Countryside’, p. 29).

I also disagree with Sir Richard when he states that, “... developers haven’t concreted over so many of our green spaces.” Sorry, Sir Richard, but they have; the amount of open space we’ve lost in Chorlton alone, since I moved here in the 1970s, is shocking! And I’m not the only one who thinks like this. In his book, ‘The Butterflies of Greater Manchester’ (1998) one of our finest local amateur naturalists, Peter Hardy wrote: “The pattern of events in the Mersey Valley is typical of many parts of Greater Manchester. The continuing trend towards private transport results in more and more schemes for building new roads and widening existing ones, and development of new industrial sites and shopping precincts, sometimes in what had appeared to be sacrosanct “green belt” locations ... [An] ever- ncreasing trend towards “market testing” and privatisation, result in every scrap of land being looked at with calculation of how much profit it could generate if put to commercial use."

No doubt Peter and I will be told that Metrolink is designed to take cars off the roads. But, for now, that’s yet another un-tested hypothesis; in the meantime we’ve lost even more of our biodiverse spaces.

The problem with biodiversity loss is that it is gradual but cumulative –‘piece by piece’ as the Guardian newspaper expressed it in 2010 – and it is happening on global, national and local scales. Recently the following startling statements and estimates have come out of Brussels:

“A silent crisis of biodiversity loss is costing the European Union 450 billion euros (US$590 billion) a year, adding to the stress of the ongoing financial crisis, the European Parliament heard on Tuesday. The loss estimate was presented in a draft report to the Environment Committee by Dutch MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Special Rapporteur on Biodiversity of the European Parliament. He represents the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, ALDE, the third largest political group in the European Parliament.

"A quarter of the plants and animals in Europe are in danger of extinction," Gerbrandy told the committee. "This destruction of nature will cost about three percent annual economic growth - equivalent to that which Europe needs at present to rescue the Euro. Biodiversity loss, though, continues year after year."” Environmental News Service, 26.01.2012.

As I was writing this a article, copy of the Manchester Evening News (08.02.2012) came through the door. The lead article states that 250 new homes are to be built in Chorlton, Gorton and
Wythenshawe. Given the present ‘housing shortage’ (plus shortage of profits for developers?) it’s hard to argue against this scheme – but it does definitely and irrefutably mean more land being concreted over and less habitat for wildlife. Piece by piece, drip, drip, drip, the ‘road-to-Hell’ is being concreted over with good intentions?

Dave Bishop, February, 2012

Small Nettle Re-visited

Back in July 2009 I wrote about some new plant finds - one of which was Small Nettle (Urtica urens). In that blog entry I wrote:

"This is a smaller, more delicate, annual relative of the Common ‘Stinging’ Nettle (it also stings, by the way!). It is generally considered to be an ‘archeophyte’ – that is a plant introduced into this country, from elsewhere in the world (in this case continental Europe), before the wholly arbitrary date of 1500 AD. Like most archeophytes the seed probably arrived as a contaminant of
the crop seeds which were traded between European countries for millennia."

Since then I have found a few more examples - but it's still quite uncommon round here. Perhaps the most unusual site that I found for it was beside a bus stop opposite Stretford Mall!

As I mentioned in my last posting here, over the Christmas holiday period I stayed with my brother in his new house in North Norfolk (not far from Sandringham - now there's posh!). The countryside in that part of the world is sublime and I spent many happy hours wandering the local heaths, fields and lanes and getting pleasantly lost.

At one point I was ambling along a field boundary, trying to suppress the mild panic arising from the fact that I was fairly thoroughly lost by that point (obviously I managed to find my way back eventually - other-wise I wouldn't be writing this!). I suddenly realised that to my left was a grassy verge full of Common Nettle (U. dioica) and to my right a fallow, ploughed field full of Small Nettle. In spite of the fact that some members of these two populations were literally only inches apart there was no overlap. It just goes to show how precise that habitat requirements of some plants are and why, in South Manchester, Small Nettle is now confined to small areas of disturbed ground such as allotments and 'scuffed up' bits of ground beside bus stops!

Dave Bishop, January 2012

Hawthorn in Flower in January

I thought I'd seen it all when I visited my brother in North Norfolk over the Christmas holidays and found a clump of Snowdrops in flower on Boxing Day.; all a bit awkward really as these could not be described as 'the first Snowdrops of 2012', but rather 'the last Snowdrops of 2011'!

Then on the 13th of this month I took a walk along the river bank, from Chorlton to Didsbury, and found eight species of plant in flower. This was a bit unusual - but I told myself that several of these species can be a bit precocious some years.

Then, the day before yesterday (23.01.2012), I found several Hawthorn bushes in flower in a copse, just above the Mersey, near Kingsway. One of the old names for Hawthorn - 'May Blossom' provides a bit of a clue about when Hawthorn should flower.

I could, of course, go on and on and on about 'global warming' (the evidence for which seems pretty convincing to me and will, no doubt, have dire consequences) but I'll spare you and content myself with noting that something very unusual appears to be going on.

Dave Bishop, January 2012

Checking the Nest Boxes on Chorlton Ees and Ivy Green

Last year (2011) FoCM obtained a Council grant which allowed us to put up 20 bird boxes on the Chorlton Ees and Ivy Green Local Nature Reserve (see John Agar’s blog entry for March 2011). We put up 10 boxes on the Ivy Green side of Chorlton Brook and 10 on the Chorlton Ees side.

Last Sunday (15.01.2012) four of us: Dave Bishop, John Agar, John’s son Mark and Mark’s wife Julie set out to see if any of the boxes had been used over the previous nesting season, and to clean out those with old nests in. John brought his extensible, aluminium ladders and Mark his battery powered, electric screw-driver.

On the Ivy Green side of the brook we were dismayed to see that the first two boxes we checked were lying on the ground at the foot of their trees. At first we suspected vandalism but then we noted that the screws holding the boxes to the trees had snapped and the boxes themselves had left indentations in the bark of the trees. We had fixed the boxes to the trees too tightly and the expansion of the tree bark, in the course of the year, had exerted enough pressure to snap the screws! Nevertheless, both of these boxes contained nests. The very first nest had a single tiny egg in it which had obviously failed to hatch (see the rather blurred photograph above).

Of the next seven boxes, one had fallen - but all seven contained nests. As well as the old nest the third fallen box contained cherry stones with small holes gnawed in them. Such holed stones are a sign of mice – probably Wood Mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) – which had taken advantage of the fallen box for their own purposes.

We then moved across the brook to Chorlton Ees. It was a bit depressing to find that four of these boxes had gone missing. One had obviously been stolen because the thief had screwed the screw back into the tree (!) but there was no sign of the other three. We suspect that their screws had snapped and
the fallen boxes had been picked up and taken home to install in someone’s garden (at least, we hope that they’re being used). The remaining six boxes all had nests in them, although it looked as if one of the boxes had been abandoned part way through nest construction because wasps had taken up residence. You can see the remains of the wasps’ nest in the bottom photograph.

The nests we found seemed to be of two general types i.e. constructed almost entirely of moss or fibrous nests on platforms of grass stalks. The fibres used to construct the second type could have been synthetic, because some were green and others red. I suspect, though, that some of the fibres used
could have been dog hairs. Some of the old nests, mainly of the second type, were heavily contaminated with droppings and we suspect that birds had used them for shelter during bad weather.

All of the old nests were removed and discarded. The boxes then were cleaned out and returned to their trees, but this time the screws were not screwed in so tightly to allow for bark expansion.

John Agar’s conclusions on the significance of our findings are given below:

The likeliest species to have bred in our boxes are:

The Great Tit (Parus major) which is the largest and commonest European tit. This species breeds
in late April-June in deciduous woods, hedgerows, parks and increasingly in gardens. They nest in a hole of some kind, usually 3ft to 15ft above the ground, and often in tree stumps or walls, nest boxes and various other artificial sites such as drainpipes flower pots etc.

The Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus) which is the only native bird with blue and yellow plumage. Its breeding habits are similar to those of the Great Tit.

The Coal Tit (Parus ater) which is the smallest European tit being slightly smaller than the Blue Tit. This species breeds in coniferous woodlands but is increasing seen in deciduous woodlands and gardens.

Nests

All three species are remarkably similar in their choice of nesting material. Both sexes carry dry grass and
moss into the hole and lining it with hair, down or wool.

Eggs

All three species lay large clutches of eggs: Great Tits 8 -15, Blue Tits 9-12 and Coal Tits 7-12. There is
a remarkable similarity in the colouring i.e. white with red or reddish brown markings. The egg of the Great Tit is the largest but Coal Tit eggs are larger than those of the Blue Tit - even though it is the smaller bird.

In all three species the eggs are incubated by the female for between 14-18 days, during which time she is fed by the male bird. Hatchlings are fed by both parents and leave the nest after 2-3 weeks,

Remarkably all of our nest boxes had been occupied, although it`s not possible to know if all were successful. However, there was no evidence of dead nestlings in any of the boxes. Ideally the boxes
should have been cleaned out in the autumn when the nesting material would not have been so wet and degraded. I think it reasonable to assume that a good number of nestlings had fledged.

Given that the nesting material of the three species is so similar it is not possible say what number of each were present. It would require observation to be carried out when feeding was in progress. We’ll try to make these observations this year. I would expect that Great/Blue were in the majority with just two three pairs Coal Tits.

Finally, if anyone reading this has ‘rescued ‘any of the four missing boxes from Chorlton Ees, please, please, please make sure that you clean them out before the nesting season starts in a couple of months time!

Dave Bishop and John Agar, January 2012

Trees and Winter Gales

I suppose that if you live around Chorlton Green, or have visited it in the last couple of days, you will have noticed that one of the Lime trees that grow around the edge of the Green has been blown over.

I think that this happened either late on the night of Wednesday 4^th January
or early the next morning.

This tree grew at the north-west corner of the Green and I suspect that that night’s gales were channelled and amplified as they blew down Albemarle Road - making a tree on that particular corner very vulnerable.

In spite of this loss we have escaped very lightly compared to the Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh (where the recent gales have been much stronger than those that we have experienced in South Manchester). A report (see ref. below) on the damage to the gardens states that:

“... it will take much longer to replace more than 40 trees blown over in the storms. They include some specimens which were hundreds of years old, and others which were important in the history of the collection.”

The report continues:

“Dr Edwards (a spokesman for the Gardens) [showed the reporter] a huge native oak which had stood more than 15m (45ft) tall, but had been felled by the winds.

"It's a lovely big specimen tree. Or it was. It's now lying sadly on its side," he said.

"But even though this is a big tree the roots don't go down very deep. They actually only go down about two metres (6ft) into the ground. That's often surprising for people."

But the collapse of the tree has allowed experts to see, for the first time ever, what has been going on in the very uppermost branches of these trees.

"This is very exciting for me", Dr Edwards explained.

"These branches are absolutely covered in lichen. And it's not just one species of lichen. There's a whole variety - some of them growing quite luxuriantly."

That matters because lichens are highly sensitive to environmental pollution.

"The fact that there are so many lichens growing here, and they're looking so healthy, is evidence that Edinburgh has got cleaner over the past few decades."

Dr Edwards said the loss of such a tree was "a tragedy" for RBGE.

But, he added: "In some of the more natural woodland areas, this could be seen as nature's way of pruning out diseased and damaged branches and trees.” ”

With this report in mind I went to have a look at the fallen tree on the Green. Sure enough the roots were surprisingly shallow and the upper branches were adorned with lichens (and mosses and, what I assume, is some sort algae). I suspect that the lichen flora on our felled Lime is not as diverse as that on the Edinburgh Oak – but I don’t know enough about lichens to be sure.

Perhaps the saddest thing about this particular loss is that the tree’s twigs bore abundant buds – just waiting to burst forth in the coming spring; this, of course, will never happen now.

During previous winter gales we have lost several trees on Chorlton Ees. The trees there are particularly prone to wind blow after prolonged rains - which soften the ground. I don’t suppose that I need to remind anyone that we’ve had lots and lots of rain recently and the ground is
very soft indeed.

After I’d examined and photographed the fallen tree on the Green, I walked over to the Ees to inspect any damage there. To my great surprise I couldn’t find a single fallen tree (apart, that is, from those blown over in previous years). It could be that the winds were not as strong this winter as they have been in previous years; but another possibility occurred to me:

The trees on Chorlton Ees were planted around 40 years ago. They were planted too close together, have rarely been thinned and, as a result, have tended to grow tall and spindly. In addition, because they are planted trees they have, almost by definition, weakened roots (digging up a tree and re-planting it tends to damage its roots). When these trees reached an optimum
height they became vulnerable to wind blow. But successive winter gales, over the last few years, have now winnowed out the weakest and most vulnerable trees.

From now on fewer will blow down and those that remain may even have stronger
roots (I suspect that the bending and flexing that goes on during gales may
strengthen the roots in such a way that they are more able to withstand the
prevailing winds). I should stress that this is just a hypothesis and don’t be
surprised if we lose more trees if we get more gales this winter or in
subsequent years.

In a spindly plantation, such as that on Chorlton Ees, the loss of
a few trees to gales is no big deal and tends to add to the biodiversity of the
site by letting in more light. In addition, as the fallen trunks rot they form
a habitat for various invertebrates, fungi, mosses and ferns.

Dave Bishop, January, 2012

Reference: 'Worst ever' storm damage at Edinburgh botanic
garden By Huw Williams BBC Scotland reporter, BBC News, Edinburgh, Fife & East
Scotland, 05.01.2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16427921)