This is a repository copy of The future of peatland in : balancing economics, carbon and biodiversity.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/131029/

Version: Published Version

Article: Payne, Richard John, Anderson, A Russell, Sloan, Tom et al. (6 more authors) (2018) The future of peatland : balancing economics, carbon and biodiversity. . pp. 34-40.

Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item.

Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

[email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Research

By R. J. Payne, A. R. Anderson, T. Sloan, P. Gilbert, A. Newton, J. Ratcliffe, D. Mauquoy, W. Jessop and R. Andersen The future of peatland forestry in Scotland: balancing economics, carbon and biodiversity

Summary is right for which site need to be made store carbon in a largely inert form there From the 1940s to the 1980s large areas soon but doing so will be difficult given is concern that degrading peatlands of conifer forest were planted on Scottish large gaps in the underlying science. may be significantly exacerbating peatland. Many of these plantations are anthropogenic climate change through now reaching harvesting age and critical 1. The importance of peatlands release of carbon dioxide (Hooijer et questions surround what should be done Peatlands are a comparatively rare al, 2010). This concern is currently with them next. This paper reviews and habitat, covering only around 3% of motivating extensive attempts to summarises some key issues, outstanding the globe, but are disproportionately conserve and restore peatlands around questions and ongoing research in this important in many ways (Dise, 2009). the world; however, carbon is not the area. Three key options for the future Much current interest is driven by the only reason to value peatlands. Peatlands are: re-stocking plantations for a second fact that is rich in carbon (~50% of also play important roles in water quality rotation; restoration of plantations to solid matter)(Lindsay et al, 2010) and and supply, host a range of unique open bog; and a ‘middle-way’ option global peatlands store an estimated species, provide spaces for recreation and which attempts to retain trees but 600 gigatons of carbon (GtC) (Yu et preserve a record of past environments without the negative consequences al, 2010). To put this in context, the and human activity (Bain et al, 2011). of commercial forestry. Each of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Forestry is often considered a threat to these options faces practical issues Change estimate that prior to human many of these ‘ecosystem services’. and difficult trade-offs between the carbon dioxide emissions, the carbon economic value of forestry, biodiversity, content of the entire atmosphere 2. Scottish peatlands and the value of peat as a store of carbon was a similar 589GtC (Stocker, 2014). and forestry which mitigates climate change. The Comparing these two numbers, it is clear Scotland is a singularly peat-covered future of peatland forestry in Scotland is that changes in the peatland carbon pool country. Different definitions and data likely to be a patchwork of each of these have the potential to significantly affect sources mean that estimates of Scottish possibilities. Decisions on which option global climate. While intact peatlands peat cover vary, but may account for up

THE AUTHORS Dr Richard J. Payne is a lecturer technician at the Environmental Dr Dmitri Mauquoy is a senior Dr Richard J. Payne*, Russell in environmental science at the Research Institute (ERI) in lecturer at the School of Anderson, Tom Sloan, Dr Peter University of York. Thurso. Geosciences, University of Gilbert, Dr Anthony Newton, Russell Anderson is a Dr Anthony Newton is a . Joshua Ratcliffe, Dr Dmitri researcher based at Forest Lecturer at the School of William Jessop is a PhD student Mauquoy, William Jessop and Research’s Northern Research Geosciences, University of based at the Environment Dr Roxane Andersen Station. . Department, University of York. *Corresponding author. E-mail: Tom Sloan is a PhD student Joshua Ratcliffe is a PhD Dr Roxane Andersen is a [email protected], based at the Environment student at the School of Science senior research fellow at University of York. Department, University of York. & Engineering, University of the Environmental Research Dr Peter Gilbert is a field Waikato. Institute (ERI) in Thurso.

34 | SCOTTISH FORESTRY Figure 1: Peatland ploughing for afforestation. In this 1979 image, a low ground-pressure tractor is towing a double mould board plough at Rumster Forest, . Photograph by George Dey, presented by permission from the University of Aberdeen and courtesy of Norman Davidson and http:// www.forestry-memories.org.uk.

to 30% of the total land area (Chapman et al, 2009), a higher proportion than almost any country in Europe (Montanarella et al, 2006). The largest extents of peat occur in the north and west, particularly the Flow Country of Caithness and , the Isle of Lewis, and (Chapman et al, 2009). This peatland has traditionally been viewed by some as low-value wasteland, often used only for deer stalking, or low-density sheep grazing. For more than a century, Scottish peatland has attracted the interest of foresters as a potential location for new forestry. To quote an early twentieth century forester: “There is a special Figure 2: The difficulties of peatland afforestation. In this 1983 image a tractor and plough (the same fascination in coaxing useful plantations vehicle as Figure 1) has become bogged down in deep peat at Benmore in Shin Forest, Sutherland. to arise ‘in the wide desert where no life Photograph courtesy of Norman Davidson and http://www.forestry-memories.org.uk. is found’” (MacDonald, 1945). While attempts to afforest Scottish peatlands forestry on peat was viewed as a means to the removal of tax incentives in 1988, the go back to the 18th century, they were encourage employment in remote areas, conservation designation of large areas of limited in extent and success before reduce dependence on timber imports peat, and ultimately the mid-20th century. Following the and make ‘wasteland’ productive. By the guidance against new planting on deep Second World War, the introduction mid-1980s, perhaps more than a tenth of peat (Patterson and Anderson, 2000). of new tree species, advent of better UK peat had been planted with conifers, While planting trees on peat was tractors and the Cuthbertson double mostly the North American imports Sitka technically possible, producing useful mouldboard plough led to the first spruce (Picea sitchensis) and Lodgepole timber from peatland plantations has large-scale plantations by the Forestry pine (Pinus contorta). However, from not always proved easy. Tree growth has Commission (MacDonald, 1957) (Figure the late 1970s, there was an increasing often been slow, particularly in wet sites 1). While afforesting peatland remained conservation backlash focused or where drains have not been maintained a considerable challenge (Figure 2), it particularly on the Flow Country and the (Tittensor, 2016). Lodgepole pine planting was increasingly technically feasible to impact of afforestation on the wildlife has often produced trees with crooked plant trees on peat. Later but equally and landscape of an area often viewed as trunks (‘basal sweep’), impairing timber important in promoting peatland forestry Scotland’s last wilderness (Stroud et al, quality. On deep peat, many plantations was a generous tax incentive system 1988; Warren, 2000). Amidst considerable have been subject to wind-throw and which made afforestation financially acrimony, new peatland afforestation plantations have also faced problems with very profitable for private companies mostly ceased by the end of the 1980s pests and diseases such as the Pine Beauty and individuals (Stroud et al, 2015; (Stroud et al, 2015). Contributory factors Moth and Dothistroma needle blight Warren, 2000). At a governmental level, to this cessation of new planting included (Warren, 2000).

Volume 72 No. 1 Spring/Summer 2018 | 35 Research

3. Peatland forestry and carbon vegetation and the carbon retained in The change in attitudes to peatland “Trees are likely to have trees and tree products over the time forestry at the end of the 20th century much greater primary period under consideration. Neither was primarily driven by increasing side of this equation is well-constrained concerns about impacts on wildlife, but production than natural and considerable current research is today much current interest is driven by bog vegetation and, unlike investigating this issue. questions about the impacts of peatland an intact bog, a drained Studies of the impact of forestry on forestry on climate. In many global bog is likely to produce peatland carbon fall into two general contexts afforestation is viewed as an categories: studies investigating carbon effective climate mitigation strategy little methane” fluxes and studies investigating carbon due to carbon sequestration by the stocks. The former are more numerous trees, but this may not be the case in and focus on quantifying the movement UK peatlands. Milne and Brown (1997) and peat cracks allow air to penetrate of carbon in and out of peatlands as estimate the carbon stock of all British the peat (Hargreaves et al, 2003). Carbon carbon dioxide, methane and aquatic woodlands to be around 100 megatons losses during the process of planting carbon. This is an active research area (Mt), but the carbon stock of Scottish are likely to be large with erosion of with projects ongoing at many Scottish peatlands to be 4523Mt. While there are particulate carbon from exposed peat universities, Forest Research, the James large uncertainties associated with these surfaces, decomposition of dead plant Hutton Institute (JHI) and the Centre numbers it is unambiguous that Scottish material and newly-exposed peat, and for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH). The peatlands store far more carbon than more rapid flushing of organic carbon key advantage of this approach is that it Scottish woodlands. There is conflicting through the ditch network (Trettin allows different forms of carbon, with evidence on whether planting trees on et al, 1996). Fertilisation is likely to differing climate warming potential, to peat leads to more carbon loss from peat promote microbial activity and conifer be disaggregated and the underlying than is gained by the trees. root exudates may ‘prime’ the loss mechanisms to be probed. The key In tropical and boreal regions, of old carbon from the peat (Basiliko disadvantage is that the flux approach naturally forested peatland is common, et al, 2012). Impacts on the bog may can only investigate the situation as but most Scottish peatland is currently accelerate as the canopy closes after it currently stands. This is significant treeless with the exception of recent 10-15 years. This increases interception because large quantities of carbon were plantations. While there are a few and evapotranspiration and effectively probably lost from peatlands during locations, mostly in the Eastern excludes primary production by any ground preparation and the early stages Highlands, with seemingly natural remaining bog vegetation (Anderson of planting, but it is now impossible to occurrence of native trees on peat, et al, 2000). quantify these fluxes because peatlands these are rare, perhaps because most It is widely acknowledged that are no longer being newly afforested of Scotland has a less continental afforestation has the potential to lead to (Hommeltenberg et al, 2014). It is for this climate, a history of continuous high carbon loss from the peat store, but how reason that an approach based on carbon herbivore pressure and in many areas much carbon may be lost and how this stocks is also valuable. In this approach a lack of seed source on and around varies, remains almost entirely unknown. the total quantity of carbon is calculated peatlands (Anderson and Harding, 2002; The issue is not straightforward, as and compared between peatlands with MacKenzie and Worrell, 1995). The carbon lost from the peat and the and without forestry, results thereby widespread presence of pine stumps original vegetation, may be balanced by account for all loses and gains of carbon in peat (Birks, 1975) demonstrates that atmospheric carbon fixed by the trees. over time. The key difficulty in studies of there may have been more widespread Trees are likely to have much greater this nature is ensuring comparability of naturally forested peatland earlier in primary production than natural bog values, particularly as peat carbon stock the Holocene, but today the natural vegetation and, unlike an intact bog, a can be very spatially variable. In our state of almost all Scottish bogs is drained bog is likely to produce little current research we are using volcanic treeless, with surface moisture too high methane. The ultimate carbon balance ash (‘tephra’) layers as unambiguous and nutrient levels too low for trees to depends on the long-term fate of age-markers in peat cores to make prosper. For conifers to grow on peat harvested timber (Hargreaves et al, 2003) quantitative comparisons between peat these constraints must be removed, so and the amount of carbon incorporated segments in forested and unafforested tree planting is preceded by the digging into the peat via needle litter, root litter Scottish peatlands (see https://www. of drainage ditches and ploughing to and root exudates (Vanguelova et al, york.ac.uk/environment/carbon- provide raised, competition-free planting 2017). The carbon storage implication accumulation-loss/). positions and application of fertiliser if wood products from peatland (phosphorous and where required plantations are utilised for long lifespan 4. Peatland forestry potassium and nitrogen) to increase products (e.g. in construction) may and biodiversity nutrient availability (Taylor, 1991). be quite different to that if wood is Beyond their value as a carbon store, These are conditions which we know used for short lifespan uses (e.g. fuel) peatlands contain a huge diversity of are likely to lead to oxidative loss of or left to rot in-situ. The implication organisms, from microscopic testate carbon from peat. Lowering the water of afforestation for carbon balance is amoebae to the UK’s largest land table exposes a greater depth of peat to therefore the difference between the mammal, red deer. While the absolute aerobic decomposition and tree roots carbon lost from the peat and the original numbers of these plant and animal

36 | SCOTTISH FORESTRY © Richard Payne

conditions using minimal cultivation and fertiliser addition (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2015). Extensive restocking is already under way in locations where tree growth has been good in the first rotation, particularly in drier sites and on shallower peat. The Forestry Commission guidance acknowledges the potential for forestry to lead to peat carbon loss, but operates on the basis that this will be compensated for by carbon fixed during tree growth, where this is strong (for Sitka spruce, a General Yield Class greater than 8). This assumption is open to question given the currently limited and uncertain science in this area (Forestry Research, 2014).

ii) Restoration. In other locations, restoration is likely Figure 3: The current state of peatland forestry (RSPB in 2014). In the foreground trees to be the preferred option. Since have been felled-to-waste as part of peatland restoration while in the background the plantation the potential problems of peatland remains standing. afforestation were first recognised various organisations have been studying species are often low, many are species infrastructure on movement patterns of how to restore afforested peatlands specially adapted to wet and acidic larger animals. For some birds, including towards their natural ‘open’ state conditions and therefore only found dunlin and golden plover, this ‘edge (Andersen et al, 2017; Anderson and in this habitat. Planting trees on peat effect’ extends hundreds of metres Peace, 2017). There are now ambitious leads to a fundamental change in the beyond the plantation itself (Wilson et al, national targets for peatland restoration ecosystem. The tree canopy shades 2014). Current research is investigating and extensive investments are being out other plants and drying of the the impacts of forestry on peatland made by government (for instance peat surface and nutrient addition birds (RSPB), insects (University of through the Scottish Rural Development change the very characteristics of the the Highlands and Islands and JHI), Programme and SNH’s Peatland ecosystem which peatland organisms plants (several universities) and Action programme) and NGOs (RSPB, are adapted to. Consequently, the plant microorganisms (Edge Hill University). Scottish Wildlife Trust etc.), along with and animal communities found in efforts to leverage private investment afforested peatland are very different 5. The future of through the Peatland Code (Reed et al, to those of natural, open, peatland peatland forestry 2013). Restoring afforested peatland is (Stroud et al, 1988). Planted sites In light of the potential impacts of not simple, due to the multiple ways typically include a greater abundance forestry on peatland carbon and in which tree planting modifies the of generalist and woodland species biodiversity it is unlikely that Scotland peatland environment. Most forest- and far fewer peatland specialists. This will see extensive new tree planting on to-bog peatland restoration in the is most immediately apparent in the peat in the medium-term future. The UK focuses on two key interventions: plants: open peatlands typically have fate of existing plantations is less clear. removing trees and raising the water extensive carpets of Sphagnum mosses, Current forestry policy recommends table. Trees have been either felled to sedges and shrubs; whereas afforested three alternative options: restocking, waste and left on site (Figure 4) or, peatlands typically have large areas restoration and a ‘third way’ termed increasingly, harvested and removed of needle-covered bare peat, brown ‘Peatland Edge Woodland’; the future from site. The latter is recognised as the mosses and Sphagnum is often entirely is likely to see a mosaic of all three preferred option, but has not always restricted to wet ditches (Stroud et (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2015, been viable because restoration is often al, 1988). The loss of Sphagnum with 2016) (Figure 3). undertaken before the trees reach a afforestation is particularly significant as size where harvesting is financially these mosses are often considered to be i) Re-stocking. viable. On some deep peat sites, trees ‘ecosystem engineers’, due to their roles Where tree growth has been good and grow so slowly that they will only ever in acidifying and slowing decomposition timber has economic value, peatland produce low-value timber, which it is not in peatlands (van Breemen, 1995). The plantations are likely to be restocked, economic to harvest. Where trees remain effects of peatland afforestation on often as like-for-like replacement. on site after felling, they are often placed biodiversity may extend well beyond Forestry Commission guidance in the drains and plough furrows to slow the plantation itself through the effects proposes that restocking is likely to drainage and reduce decomposition of forestry on surrounding unplanted be the preferred option where good rates. There is current interest in the peatland and the influence of trees and growth is possible under current site possibility of actively burying wood in

Volume 72 No. 1 Spring/Summer 2018 | 37 © Richard Payne Research

the peat to retain the wood carbon in the peat for the long-term (Zeng, 2008). In parallel with tree felling, restoration projects aim to raise the water table to prevent peat oxidation and restore the conditions required by typical peatland plants. This is usually achieved by blocking ditches and furrows usually with dams constructed of compressed peat (or occasionally with plastic piling) (Anderson and Peace, 2017). In some newer restoration projects, this ditch- blocking is combined with re-profiling involving flattening of plough ridges and infilling of furrows to give a flatter, wetter surface more similar to that of a natural bog. In other, typically drier Figure 4: Forest-to-bog peatland restoration underway at RSPB Forsinard. In this 2014 image the digger sites, restoration organisations have is conducting secondary treatment, compacting previously felled-to-waste trees into the plough furrows. experimented with more intensive hydrological interventions such as ‘cell but rather initial tree-removal and ditch ‘Peatland Edge Woodland’ (Forestry bunding’, in which trenches filled with blocking may be the start of a long-term Commission Scotland, 2015, 2016). This packed peat are used to create a network process requiring multiple interventions possibility is a compromise, largely of bunds which form cells to retain as restoration progresses and restoration driven by a desire by policy-makers to water. Similarly, organisations have practice improves (Figure 4). On many see an overall increase in woodland cover experimented with ‘contour bunding’, forest-to-bog restoration sites, especially that supports a positive carbon balance where bunds follow the topography; those where some trees remain, or and other environmental benefits. current Forestry Commission trials of where the peat surface remains relatively There is a recognition in government this approach have proved promising. dry, natural regeneration of both non- that the woodland cover of Scotland Restoration is a long-term process native crop species and native tree and the UK as a whole is very low by and even sites restored many decades species (especially birch) will be an international standards and targets have ago remain considerably different ongoing management issue and may been set to reach 25% woodland cover from natural peatlands. For most sites require repeated active management in Scotland by 2050 and 12% of the UK the assumption is that once trees are through felling, herbicide treatment, by 2060 (DEFRA, 2013; The Scottish removed and water table raised the plant or pulling of seedlings. Although much Government, 2009). In Scotland, this community will eventually progress research is focused on the consequences is manifested in current large-scale towards a community typical of open of restoration, the development of planting of native species woodland, bog and as this happens other species restoration methods has largely particularly Caledonian Pine forest (The will also return. However, recovery may emerged through an informal process , 2009). Woodland be slowed by forestry legacy, such as of experimentation by practitioners, expansion and forest-to-bog peatland the release of nutrients from brash and combined with attempts to learn from restoration have similar climate-related needle litter years after the trees have each other’s experience. There is little motivations, but the extensive removal been removed (Gaffney, 2017). In some doubt that in the long-term, restoration is of plantations from peatland makes sites, certain non-target species can likely to yield benefits in terms of carbon targets for increased overall forest become dominant during restoration (e.g. storage and biodiversity, but this comes cover harder to achieve, particularly Molinia caerulea) and may inhibit the at a cost of the economic value of the given that plantations are also being recovery of many typical bog species. In forestry removed (albeit often small) and removed elsewhere for other reasons some restoration projects, experiments the substantial cost of restoration itself. such as windfarm development. It is have been made to speed vegetation There are currently key socio- theoretically possible for all afforested recovery through translocation of plants economic questions outstanding, as peatlands to be restored and overall and application of micropropagated plant attempts to assess the costs and benefits woodland cover to still be increased by products in an effort to restore cover of of forest-to-bog peatland restoration more extensive planting on mineral soils. typical species, particularly Sphagnum are compromised by a fundamental lack However, given the extent of afforested mosses (Rosenburgh, 2015). Restoration of data on both the full economic cost peatland in Scotland, this would be is an ongoing process and practice has of restoration and the likely ecosystem very expensive and is therefore not developed through a process of trial service benefits of individual restoration considered a likely scenario in the near- and error. As complete forest-to-bog efforts (Moxey and Moran, 2014). to-medium term. Additional expansion restoration is expected to take many of forestry on upland mineral soils also decades, the trajectories of restored iii) Peatland Edge Woodland. poses risks to other high conservation sites are uncertain. Experience thus far The final option for the future of value habitats. Peatland Edge Woodland suggests that restoration cannot always afforested peatlands recognised by is conceived as a ‘middle way’ option for be viewed as a ‘one off’ intervention, the Forestry Commission is so-called peatlands, where standard commercial

38 | SCOTTISH FORESTRY forestry practices may lead to a loss Edge Woodland can be achieved. Once achieved and which of these options of carbon. Peatland Edge Woodland developed, Peatland Edge Woodland is best in which sites. Determining the envisions peatlands with low density sites are likely to require ongoing right option for the future of peatland cover (500 stems ha-1) of native species monitoring and active management to plantations requires difficult trade-offs within their natural range. The aim is avoid the risk of ‘runaway’ expansion of to be made among biodiversity, the to create a habitat which achieves the tree cover and determine whether they ecosystem services provided by different best of both peatland and woodland. are successfully delivering the desired habitats and the value of commercial The concept is new and it remains outcomes. Maintaining a sufficiently forestry. This is compounded by the to be determined whether Peatland wet surface to prevent peat oxidation difficulty of achieving government targets Edge Woodland can be achieved in a while allowing tree survival is likely to for both extensive peatland restoration way which both secures the peatland be a key challenge. and forest expansion (DEFRA, 2013). The carbon stock and provides some of the rate and nature of future climate change biodiversity and ecosystem service Conclusions introduces additional uncertainty into benefits of woodland. The presence of Forestry on peat has been a contentious the future fate of peatland forestry and naturally forested peatland in Scotland topic for more than 30 years and the feasibility of restoration as a climate (albeit rare) suggests that trees and peat this continues to be the case. While mitigation measure (Boysen et al, 2017). can coexist in the right circumstances, conservationists might hope for total but whether this is possible in other removal of peatland plantations, this is Acknowledgements geographic areas and on sites formerly not realistic. Instead, as first rotation This work was primarily supported by the used for commercial forestry is uncertain plantations reach harvesting age different Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2015-162) and and the idea has been treated with sites are likely to be treated in different secondarily by the Carnegie Trust for the scepticism by some scientists and ways: some re-stocked, some restored to Universities of Scotland, the British Ecological conservation organisations (RSPB open bog and some planted with native Society, the Russian Science Foundation Scotland, 2014). Research is now needed species. The decisions which must be (14-14-00891) and the Natural Environment to determine whether and how Peatland made now are about how this can be Research Council’s Valuing Nature Programme.

ERICERIC BOYDBOYD FORESTRYFORESTRY LTDLTD

Forestry Establishment and Maintenance Contractors Contractors based throughout most of Scotland

Mob: 07788 923820 Tel: 01369 703316 E-mail: [email protected] www.boydforestry.co.uk

Volume 72 No. 1 Spring/Summer 2018 | 39 Research

restoration in formerly afforested peatlands on Forests and Peatland Habitats Guideline Note References water quality and aquatic carbon fluxes. PhD (2000). RSPB Scotland, Edinburgh. Andersen, R., Farrell, C., Graf, M., Muller, Thesis. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen. F., Calvar, E., Frankard, P., Caporn, S. Stocker, T.F. (2014). Climate change 2013: and Anderson, P. (2017). An overview of Hargreaves, K., Milne, R. and Cannell, M. the physical science basis: Working Group I the progress and challenges of peatland (2003). Carbon balance of afforested contribution to the Fifth assessment report restoration in Western Europe. Restoration peatland in Scotland. Forestry Vol 76. pp299- of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Ecology Vol 25. pp271-282. 317. Change. Cambridge University Press. Anderson, A., Ray, D. and Pyatt, D. (2000). Hommeltenberg, J., Schmid, H.P., Drösler, Stroud, D.A., Reed, T., Pienkowski, M. and Physical and hydrological impacts of blanket M. and Werle, P. (2014). Can a bog drained Lindsay, R. (1988). Birds, bogs and forestry- bog afforestation at Bad a’ Cheo, Caithness: for forestry be a stronger carbon sink than The peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland. the first 5 years. Forestry Vol 73. pp467-478. a natural bog forest? Biogeosciences Vol 11. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. pp3477-3493. Anderson, A.R. and Harding, K.I.M. (2002). The Stroud, D.A., Reed, T., Pienkowski, M. and age structure of Scots Pine bog woodlands. Hooijer, A., Page, S., Canadell, J.G., Silvius, Lindsay, R. (2015). The Flow Country: battles Scottish Forestry Vol 56. pp135-143. M., Kwadijk, J., Wösten, H. and Jauhiainen, fought, war won, organisation lost, in: J. (2010). Current and future CO emissions Thompson, D.B.A., Birks, H.H., Birks, H.J.B. Anderson, R. and Peace, A. (2017). Ten-year 2 from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. (Eds.), Nature’s conscience. The life and legacy results of a comparison of methods for Biogeosciences Vol 7. pp1505-1514. of Derek Ratcliffe. Langford Press, Norfolk, pp. restoring afforested blanket bog. Mires and 401-439. Peat Vol 19 Lindsay, R. (2010). Peatbogs and carbon: a critical synthesis to inform policy development Taylor, C.M.A. (1991). Forest Fertilisation in Bain, C., Bonn, A., Stoneman, R., Chapman, S., in oceanic peat bog conservation and Britain. Forestry Commission Bulletin 95. Coupar, A., Evans, M., Gearey, B., Howat, M., restoration in the context of climate change. HMSO. Joosten, H. and Keenleyside, C. (2011). IUCN RSPB Scotland. UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. IUCN, The Scottish Government (2009). The Edinburgh. MacDonald, A.J.B. (1945). The Lon Mor: Scottish Government’s rationale for woodland Twenty years’ research into wasteland expansion. The Scottish Government, Basiliko, N., Stewart, H., Roulet, N.T. and Moore, peat afforestation in Scotland. Forestry: An Edinburgh. T.R. (2012). Do root exudates enhance peat International Journal of Forest Research Vol 19. decomposition? Geomicrobiology Journal Vol Tittensor, R. (2016). Shades of green: an pp67-73. 29. pp374-378. environmental and cultural history of Sitka MacDonald, J. (1957). Exotic forest trees in spruce. Windgather Press, Oxford. Birks, H.H. (1975). Studies in the vegetational Great Britain. Forestry Commission Bulletin Vol . IV. Pine stumps in Scottish Trettin, C.C., Davidian, M., Jurgensen, M. and 30. p3. blanket . Philosophical Transactions of the Lea, R. (1996). Organic matter decomposition Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences MacKenzie, N. and Worrell, R. (1995). A following harvesting and site preparation of Vol 270. pp181-226. preliminary assessment of the ecology and a forested . Soil Science Society of status of ombrotrophic wooded bogs in America Journal Vol 60. pp1994-2003. Boysen, L.R., Lucht, W., Gerten, D., Heck, V., Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Research Lenton, T.M. and Schellnhuber, H.J. (2017). van Breemen, N. (1995). How Sphagnum Survey and Monitoring Report 40. Scottish The limits to global-warming mitigation by bogs down other plants. Trends in Ecology & Natural Heritage, Edinburgh. terrestrial carbon removal. Earth’s Future Vol. Evolution Vol 10. pp270-275. Milne, R. and Brown, T. (1997). Carbon in the Chapman, S., Bell, J., Donnelly, D. and Lilly, A. Vanguelova, E.I., Crow, P., Benham, S., Pitman, vegetation and soils of Great Britain. Journal of (2009). Carbon stocks in Scottish peatlands. R., Forster, J., Eaton, E.L. and Morison, J.I.L. Environmental Management Vol 49. pp413-433. Soil Use and Management Vol 25. pp105-112. (in prep). Impact of Sitka spruce afforestation Montanarella, L., Jones, R.J. and Hiederer, R. on the carbon stocks of peaty gley soils – a DEFRA (2013). Government forestry and (2006). The distribution of peatland in Europe. chronosequence study in the north of England. woodlands policy statement. DEFRA, London. Mires and Peat Vol 1. pp1-10. Forestry. Dise, N.B. (2009). Peatland response to global Moxey, A. and Moran, D. (2014). UK peatland Warren, C. (2000). ‘Birds, bogs and forestry’ change. Science Vol 326. pp810. restoration: Some economic arithmetic. revisited: The significance of the flow country Forestry Commission Scotland (2015). Science of The Total Environment Vol 484. controversy. The Scottish Geographical Deciding future management options pp114-120. Magazine Vol 116. pp315-337. for afforested deep peatland. Forestry Patterson, G. and Anderson, R. (2000). Wilson, J.D., Anderson, R., Bailey, S., Chetcuti, Commission, Edinburgh. Forests and peatland habitats: guideline note. J., Cowie, N.R., Hancock, M.H., Quine, C.P., Forestry Commission Scotland (2016). Forestry Commission. Russell, N., Stephen, L. and Thompson, D.B.A. Supplementary guidance to support the FC Reed, M., Bonn, A., Evans, C., Joosten, H., Bain, (2014). Modelling edge effects of mature Forests and Peatland Habitats Guideline B., Farmer, J., Emmer, I., Couwenberg, J., Moxey, forest plantations on peatland waders informs Note (2000). Forestry Commission Scotland, A. and Artz, R. (2013). Peatland code research landscape-scale conservation. Journal of Edinburgh. project final report. DEFRA, London. Applied Ecology Vol 51. pp204-213. Forestry Research (2014). An overview of the Rosenburgh, A.E. (2015). Restoration and Yu, Z., Loisel, J., Brosseau, D.P., Beilman, science underpinning ‘Forestry on peatland recovery of Sphagnum on degraded blanket D.W. and Hunt, S.J. (2010). Global peatland habitats: Supplementary guidance to support bog. Manchester Metropolitan University. dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum. the FC Forests and Peatland Habitats Geophysical Research Letters Vol 37. Guideline Note (2000). Forest Research, RSPB Scotland (2014). RSPB Scotland’s Zeng, N. (2008). Carbon sequestration via Edinburgh. response to the public consultation on the draft: Forestry on peatland habitats - wood burial. Carbon Balance and Management Gaffney, P. (2017). The effects of bog Supplementary guidance to support the FC Vol 3. p1.

40 | SCOTTISH FORESTRY