Dicker Msc (002).Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Canterbury Christ Church University’s repository of research outputs http://create.canterbury.ac.uk Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. Dicker, M. (2016) The impact of agricultural change and farming practices on farmland trees and hedgerows as a landscape and ecological resource, with specific focus on Kent. M.Sc. thesis, Canterbury Christ Church University. Contact: [email protected] The Impact of Agricultural Change and Farming Practices on Farmland Trees and Hedgerows as a Landscape and Ecological Resource, with Specific Focus on Kent Mary Dicker Canterbury Christ Church University Thesis Submitted for the Degree of MSc by Research in Environmental Geography October 2016 Abstract A decline in the length of hedgerow boundaries and number of farmland trees in the agricultural landscape triggered the destruction and deterioration of many important habitats, species and their specialised microhabitats. This research studied two contrasting physiographic regions, the Low Weald and the Downs in Kent, to identify the extent of these losses. It was hypothesized that changes in the agricultural landscape has been affected by the modification and development of the agricultural system post-World War and that these changes would differ between the two physiographic regions. This research confirmed that post-World War, the length of hedgerow boundaries has declined and even with environmental incentives to increase the planting and maintenance of hedgerows, the length is still not what it was pre-World War. To analyse the ecological benefits that farmland trees are providing within the environment, the types and number of microhabitats present on farmland trees were recorded. It was hypothesized that because of farming management taking place, trees on farmland would produce some of these specialised microhabitats predominantly present on mature trees; but the numbers produced would be lower on younger trees. This research has confirmed that young and mature trees can produce at least one specialised microhabitat within a farmland system. The type and number of microhabitats present varied with the species of tree. Species found on both physiographic regions had nearly the same range of microhabitats present, and the size of the tree was found to not affect the ability to produce a microhabitat. This research concludes that agricultural practices can be a precursor for some specialised microhabitats to form on farmland trees. i Acknowledgements I would like to thank my thesis supervisors for their continued support, patience, time, and guidance through this thesis and to the rest of the geography staff at Canterbury Christ Church University, who have given their time, advice and support over the past year. Finally, this research would not have been nearly possible without the support of those who accompanied and assisted me out in the field. ii Contents Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…i Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ii Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………iii-vii Illustrations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……v-vii 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……-3 .: Bitais Coutside Chages ……………………………………………………………………………….-2 1.2: Aims of this Stud………………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 2. Hedgerows, Trees and Landscape Changes i Britai ………………………………………………-31 2.1: History of Bitais Agiultual Ladsape …………………………………………………….…….. 4-6 2.2: Pre, Inter and Post World War Agricultural Changes i the Bitish Coutside …….-9 .: Ipotae of Bitais Hedgeo ad Tees …………………………………………………....10-21 .: Kets Geolog ………………………………………………………………………………………………...22-28 2.5: Peious ‘eseah …………………………………………………………………………………………..…29-31 . Methodolog ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….-52 .: Site Desiptio ad Ladsape Chaateistis ………………………………………………...32-35 .: Aeial Photogaph ……………………………………………………………………………………………-36 .: Data Seletio ………………………………………………………………………………………………..…36-46 .: Field Wok …………………………………………………………………………………………………………46-50 .: Statistial Aalsis .…………………………………………………………………………………………………50 3.6: Future Research …………………………………………………………………………………………..……-52 . Aalsis ad Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………-66 iii .: Bouda Legths o the Lo Weald ad Dos ………………………………………………53-57 .: Quatit of Tees o the Lo Weald ad Dos ……….………………………………………58-60 .: Fieldok ‘esults ………………………………………………………………………………………………61-66 .: Nue of iohaitats Peset pe Tee o the Dos………………………………………61 4.5: Number of microhaitats Peset pe Tee o the Lo Weald ……………………….………62 .: Peliia Pilot Stud ‘esults ……………………………………………………………………………… 63 4.7: Microhabitats Present on the Three Regios Studied .…………………………………….…-65 4.8: Tree DBH and Number of Microhabitats Peset …………………………………………….…-66 . Discussio ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……67-91 .: Statistial Aalsis Colusio ……………………………………………………………………..……67-69 5.2: Statistical Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………-79 5.3: Falad Boudaies …………………………………………………………………………………..……80-83 5.4: Falad Tees ………………………………………………………………………………………….………83-84 5.5: Miohaitats ……………………………………………………………………………………………………84-88 5.6: Implications for Farmland Management ………………………………….…………………..……88-91 . Coclusio ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……92-95 . Refereces ………………………………………………………………………………………………….………96-102 8. Appendix 1: Fieldwork Data ………………………………………………………………………………-117 8.1: Fieldwork Data for the Lo Weald ………………………………………………………..…...103-107 .: Fieldok Data fo the Dos ……………………………………………………………………...108-112 .: Fieldok Data fo the Ashdo Beds …………………………………………………….……-117 9. Appendix 2: Sample Square Locatios ad Ke ………………………………………………….-119 iv 9.1: Key for Digitized Squares………………………………………………………………………….……….. Appedi : Digitizatio Data …………………………………………………………………………-165 .: Digitized Chalk Suaes , ad ………..……………………………..…-149 .: Digitized Cla Suaes , ad ………………………………………..…..-165 . Appedi : Boudar Iforatio …………………………………………………………..…..-171 .: Bouda Ifoatio fo the Lo Weald ‘egio ……………………………….... .: Bouda Ifoatio fo the Lo Weald ‘egio ………………………………..… .: Bouda Ifoatio fo the Lo Weald ‘egio ……………………………..…… .: Bouda Ifoatio fo the Dos ‘egio …………………………………….... .: Bouda Ifoatio fo the Dos ‘egio ………………………………………... .: Bouda Ifoatio fo the Dos ‘egio ……………………………………..…. 12. Appedi : Fieldwork Iages ……………………………………………………………………….-181 .: Ashdo Beds: Miohaitat Iages …………………………………………………......172-174 .: Dos Miohaitat Iages ………………………………………………………………….…-176 12.3: Low Weald Microhaitat Iages ……………………………………………………………..-178 .: Fieldok Fa Boudaies ……………………………………………………………………..-181 Illustrations List of Figures Section 2 Figue .: Idealised Coss Setio of a Hedge ith Ailla Eleets …………………………..…11 Figue .: Itepetatio of Hedgeo Maageet Usig a Flail ………………………………..…. Figure 2.3: Geolog of Ket ………………………………………………………………………………………….….23 Figue .: Phsiogaphi ‘egios of Ket ………………………………………………………………………24 v Section 3 Figure 3.1: Geology Map ad Gid oe Ket …………………………………………………………………..…38 Figue .: Potetial Saple Plots ………………………………………………………………………….………40 Figue .: Eaple of a Disegaded Iage ……………………………………….…………………..….……41 Figue .: Eaple of a Mosai Iage ……………………………………………………………………..…..…41 Figure 3.5: Selected Sample Squares ……………………………………………………………………..……… Figue .: Digitized Suae Eaple …………………………………………………………………………...44 Figue .: Si Visual ‘epesetatios of the Mai Bouda Categoies Aalsed ……..…44 Figure 3.8: ‘eised Poess of Bouda Idetifiatio …………………………………………………47 Section 4 Figure 4.1: Boundary Lengths on the Low Weald …………………………………………………………..…. Figure 4.2: Boundary Lengths on the Dos ……………………………………………………………………. Figure 4.3: Boundary Lengths on the Lo Weald ad Dos ……………………………………….…55 Figue .: Nue of Idiidual Loe Tees Idetified o the Lo Weald ad Dos……59 Figure 4.5: Number of Hedgerow Trees Identified on the Low Weald and Downs ……..…. Figure 4.6: Number of Trees That Formed a Boundary on the Low Weald and Downs …… Figure 4.7: Number of Trees for the Three Tree Categories on the Low Weald and Downs. 60 Figue .: Nue of Miohaitats Peset pe Tee o the Dos ………………………….…61 Figure 4.9: Number of Microhabitats Present per Tree on the Low Weald …………………… Figue .: Nue of Miohaitats Peset pe Tee o the Ashdo Beds …………..… Figue .: Tee DBH ad Miohaitats Peset ………………………………………………………...66 List of Tables Section 2 Table 2.1: Policies, Legislations and Changes to Agricultural Practices Post World War ………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………… vi Section 3 Table 3.1: Typology of Microhabitats ………………………………………………………………………..…. Section 4: Table 4.1: Boundary Information for the Low Weald ………………………………………………………. Table 4.2: Boundary Information for the Downs ……………………………………………………..……… Tale .: Miohaitats Peset o the Thee ‘egios Studied ………………………….…….-65 vii 1. Introduction .:Bitais Britain’s outside Countryside has ee Changesthough otiuous ladsape hages thoughout histo; ut it as fo the s to afte Wold Wa To that Bitais outside et though a series of dramatic changes that altered the