Skares Field Trial, the Mining Sector in Scotland Has Undergone Fundamental Change

Growing Green Energy Project (Phase 1)

Skares Planting Trial Final Report

July 2016

1.0 Introduction

Eadha Enterprises (Eadha) is an environmental charity and social enterprise based in Renfrewshire. We conserve, research, propagate and plant rare native trees with a focus on aspen. We have developed and maintain the national aspen clone collection which numbers in excess of three hundred clones from across Scotland and Northern England. The collection is housed within our tree nursery although ex-situ clone gardens and arboreta are also being developed.

Eadha was awarded funding through the Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) in 2011 to initiate its Growing Green Energy Project (GGE). Eadha has a vision for ecological restoration on a landscape scale across the Scottish coalfields area where the landscape has been destroyed by large scale opencast coal mining activity and is plagued by communities struggling to find new employment opportunities. GGE initially focused on an area of East Ayrshire (North Kyle) which was regarded as having the greatest concentration of mining activity and was of an upland nature with significant existing forestry activity. The area was also designated as a “Preferred Area” for new woodland planting and included areas with “Potential for Environmental Enhancement” identified in the now superseded Ayrshire and Arran Woodland Strategy (AAWS). The project was initiated in 2012 and included the following activities:

• A trial planting of aspen on marginal ground within a reclaimed opencast site; • A feasibility study including a mapping exercise and market research to develop a working model to deliver the vision within a defined study area; • Consideration of how green jobs can be created as a result of rolling out such a project.

2.0 The Skares Trial

The site at Skares Opencast Coal Site (OCCS), part of the Netherton complex in East Ayrshire was formerly operated by ATH who have since gone into liquidation with the care and maintenance now undertaken by Hargreaves. The ownership of the site is under Foresty Commission Scotlamd (FCS). The site was initially identified as being suitable for a trial on the basis of the poor quality of the earthworks restoration, with very limited topsoil cover and compacted soils. FCS undertook a topsoil depth and elevation survey prior to planting (Appendix 1). Topsoil depths were shown to vary between 17cm and 68cm and site elevation varies between 244m and 267m above sea level. Direct observations during tree planting confirmed that the quality of the soil was extremely poor with very limited organic matter within the upper soils layers. Furthermore the quality of the topsoil is likely to have had deteriorated during storage as it loses its biological activity. The underlying subsoils comprised of replaced and compacted glacial till. There was widespread evidence of shallow perched water being retained above the clay. Most of the pits that were excavated during ground preparation have retained water and this was observed to be the case during a prolonged dry period. The nature of the colonising vegetation is also suggestive of poor growing conditions with water logging and nutrient poor compacted soils, for example with a predominance of rushes and mosses. Clearly loose tipping of surface soil, the recommended method of soil placement (FC Best Practice Guidance For Land Regeneration, Note 4) has not taken place at this site.

The purpose of the trial was to prove the efficacy of aspen and other pioneer native tree species including juniper and downy willow in colonising poor quality reclaimed land without significant inputs, for example ground ripping, deep cultivation, soil amendments, herbicide treatment, fertilizing and ongoing maintenance which would typically be specified for such sites according to best practice guidance, and to inform future large scale planting projects across the coalfields area.

Fig 1 Skares Trial location plan

A 3 Ha area was initially enclosed by a deer fence, funded by FCS. A larger area was fenced than was required by the initial trial planting to provide additional land for other possible future trials. Mechanical ground preparation involving mounding was then undertaken. Trees were subsequently planted in March 2012, with protection using vole guards and canes. Despite the original proposal to undertake weed treatment using herbicides, this was never done. Furthermore, no soil amendments or fertilizers were applied to the trees.

Three replicated block were planted, each comprising the following:

• Aspen trees propagated from root cuttings by Eadha, comprising 14 clones from a range of provenances from across Scotland. These were supplied as relatively small bare-rooted plants; • Mixed aspen clones provided as cell grown plugs by a commercial nursery (Christie-Elite) • Bare-rooted Downy willow plants of Galloway provenance grown by Cree Valley Community Woodland Trust and supplied to FCS. • Pot-grown Juniper plants supplied by Poyntzfield Nursery and believed to be of north of Scotland provenance.

A total of 336 aspen, 168 downy willow and 56 juniper were planted in each block. The planting layout is included in Appendix 2 and 3. A summary of the aspen clones is provided in the table below:

Table 1 Aspen Clones

Clone Seed Zone Elevation (m) Height (cm) EECG116 102 38 10cm bare root “ rootlings ” EECG119 102 80 10cm bare root “rootlings” EECG120 102 30 10cm bare root “rootlings” EECG127 102 194 10cm bare root “rootlings” EECG048 106 15 10cm bare root “rootlings” EERE005 107 340 20 -30cm bare root “rootlings” EECG036 108 50 10cm bare root “rootlings” EEDG009 108 330 10cm bare root “rootlings” EECG067 109 200 10 -20cm bare root “rootlings” Christie -Elite Mix 201 na 40 -60 cm cell grown (microprop agated) EECG069 201 230 10 -20cm bare root “rootlings” EECG042 202 210 10 -15 cm bare root “rootlings” EECG037 203 40 10cm bare root “rootlings” EECG018 na na 10 -20 cm bare root “rootlings” EECG129 na na 10 -15 cm bare root “rootlings”

Planting Positions

During the planting is was observed that due to the very limited topsoil cover across the site, typically it was the subsoil, comprising compacted clay/glacial till, that was exposed on the topside of the planting mounds. It was therefore decided to vary the planting position to compare performance in a range of challenging conditions. Consequently some trees were planted on the mounds while others were planted on the sides or lower parts of the mounds where there was more likely to be topsoil exposed. Other trees were planted directly into the undisturbed ground adjacent to the mounds or within the exposed soil on the sides of the pits (below ground level). The key to the various planting positions is included at the foot of the monitoring results spreadsheets. In the process of monitoring, the presence of standing water around the trees was found to be a common occurrence and was noted as part of the planting position description.

Plate 1 Planting on mounds and exposed clay subsoil

Monitoring

The monitoring protocol was as follows:

1. Trees will be planted in blocks according to clone type or species. 2. Immediately following planting, 10 trees in each aspen clone block, or if there is less than 10 in a block then the whole block, will be measured for height in cm above ground level to the nearest 1.0 cm. 3. Tree damage will be recorded at the same time as height and will include shoot/branch death, development of multiple leaders, browsing animal damage, physical damage and mortality. 4. 10 trees in each of the Juniper and Downy Willow blocks will also be recorded for mortality. 5. Planting positions/conditions will be recorded.

The objective was therefore to assess comparable survival and growth rates between aspen, juniper and downy willow and between aspen clones and to assess how different sizes of planting stock and varying planting positions and conditions affect this.

3.0 Field Observations

Groundcover Vegetation The site has been subject to revegetation during the four year monitoring period. However the range of species has been constrained by the poor ground conditions. Waterlogging has led to the domination of rushes and mosses within a grassland matrix across most of the site. Dominant flowering species observed include Creeping Thistle, Marsh Bedstraw, Buttercup and Tormentil, with lesser amounts of Ragged Robin, Purple Loosestrife, Sneezewort, Rosebay Willowherb, Forget-me-not, Orchid, Wild Rose, Birdsfoot Trefoil and vetches. The pioneer leguminous species will help to increase soil fertility over time and act as a nurse crop for other species including tree regeneration.

Tree Regeneration Willow regeneration is particularly prolific in the area immediately to the north of the trial enclosure. Within the enclosure itself, natural regeneration has also occurred to a lesser extent. It is estimated that approximately 600 well established naturally regenerated trees are now growing within the enclosure comprising 90% willow, 10% sitka spruce. Hawthorn was also noted. The dominant willow species appeared to be Grey willow (Salix cinerea) and Eared willow (Salix aurita) with hybrids between the two occurring widely (Salix multinervis). Willows were observed to be up to approximately 2m in height and the spruce up to approximately 3m in height. Photos are included in Appendix 4

4.0 Monitoring Results and Analysis

A total of three monitoring rounds were undertaken in May 2012, October 2014, and July 2016. The full results of the final monitoring round are included in Appendix 5. The results have been analysed in an attempt to understand the factors governing survival and growth rates.

Overall survival rates for the three species were Aspen (63%), Downy Willow (93%) and Juniper (61%). At first glance, the willow appears to have been significantly more successful than juniper and aspen which show rates of survival that you would expect from a poor ground site. However these figures don’t tell the whole story. The survival rate increases significantly for trees planted on dry mounds (compared to on undisturbed ground and within standing water) as follow: Aspen (80%), Downy Willow (93%) and

Juniper (87%). These figures are a lot more encouraging and illustrate the potential for successful establishment without significant inputs excepting some ground preparation.

Furthermore, the aspen displayed some variation between different clones and of the six best clones, five had 100% survival on mounds (Christie Elite Mix, EECG116, EEDG009, EECG067 and EERE005) and the other had a rate of 92% survival rate (EECG0129). However even for direct planting on undisturbed ground the top five clones had reasonably good survival rates; Christie Elite mix (100%), EECG048 (100%), EECG042 (83%), EECG067 (83%) and EERE005 (83%). These clones show exceptional resilience in the face of challenging conditions.

Survival rates start to decline significantly for planting sites which were prone to intermittent flooding or standing water. In these situations, survival for the three species was Aspen (43%), Downy Willow (100%) and Juniper (20%). This is consistent with our understanding of these species’ comparative tolerance to wetness.

It was found that for aspen, generally the taller the initial plants, the greater the survival rate (see chart below). This is likely to be due to the greater ability to compete with weed encroachment in the absence of herbicide treatment. However, in terms of initial plant height and survival, when analysed further (tables 7 and 8 in Appendix 6), there appears to be greater complexity suggesting a clonal influence comes into play. However given that the Christie Elite mix even had 100% survival in positions affected by standing water/intermittent flooding, this suggests that plant size is the dominating factor with clonal variation playing secondary role.

Stock Size - Survival (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10cm rootlings 10-20cm rootlings 20-30cm rootlings 40-60cm microprop

Chart 1 Stock Size v. Survival

Plate 2 Aspen within dense competing vegetation Plate 3 Small aspen showing checked growth due to intermittent flooding

Of course survival is only half the story, and we must also consider growth rates, in particular if woodland is to be considered as a productive crop which was the original focus of the Growing Green Project (e.g. biomass). Again the average overall figures seem discouraging, with an average height at the last monitoring round of 60cm. However, when we start to consider the small initial height of the plants, and the effects of planting position and clonal variation, the findings are more encouraging. For example the average height of the three best clones was 111cm(Christie Elite mix), 107cm(EERE005) and 95cm(EECG129). However given the variation in initial height of the trees, and considering many of the clones were very small to begin with then it is more informative to consider growth rates. The growth rates were higher for trees planted on mounds than on undisturbed ground due largely to lower vegetation competition. Tables 9 and 10 in Appendix 6 illustrate that if they can survive, the trees with the lowest height ranking generally show the greatest growth rates. The highest growth increment for a clone planted on mounds was 1138% (EERE005) and the tallest tree recorded was 170cm (EERE005).

It is interesting to see that one of the best performing clones from both a survival and growth perspective was EERE005 which was the clone from the greatest elevation (340m asl). This prompted an analysis of clones in terms of the elevation of the wild clone and performance (Tables 2-6, Appendix 6). However, there did not appear to be any correlation.

Chart 2 Growth Rates for an Aspen Clone

(Planting position key: GL: undisturbed ground; LM: side of mound; M: mound; SW: standing water)

The above chart illustrates the typical growth rates for one of the more vigorous aspen clones. Firstly it is clear that some losses have been suffered after the first year which appears to have affected the smallest of the trees. Those that have survived show highly variable growth rates which are governed by a range of factors discussed above and below.

Some of Eadha’s clones planted in the trial were used in Forest Research (FR) growth trials. It was therefore decided to undertake a comparison to assess whether the clonal variation observed in the FR trials was replicated at Skares. Of the two FR sites, the Kilmichael trial was selected Moray as the most appropriate given its closer geographical location. However, again there did not appear to be any correlation between the growth rates at Skares and FR trial data with the exception interestingly of the best and worst performing clones which seemed to correlate with growth rates on trees planted on mounds. Clearly there is a clonal influence in performance but this is driven by a range of complex interacting factors which are different between the two trial sites.

Soil quality would certainly be likely to be highly variable across mine restoration sites which could have affected survival and growth rates. Although significant and widespread soil contamination would not generally be expected from mining operations, it is possible that localized hotspots may exist, for example from fuel spills. It is worth noting that one aspen tree was observed to have developed a variegated leaf effect which could be the result of contamination or another localized soil factor. We have certainly never observed this before in aspen (see plate 4 below).

Plate 4 Variegated leaf effect on aspen

Other considerations which should be taken into account when assessing this trial include the fact that the planting was undertaken during a prolonged dry period which may have been advantageous to the cell grown stock. In addition, the cell grown stock is also likely to be at an advantage given that the trees come with their own soil plug which would have given them a head start over bare-rooted plants.

Another observation which is very encouraging is that at least four trees were seen to be actively suckering. The source trees were from a range of clones and were generally around the 80cm -1m height. Suckers numbered between one and three and were up to 20cm in height. Although there was no obvious damage to the source tree, it is known that stress can promote suckering. Lopping or coppicing might therefore be one way to provoke the spread and “natural regeneration” of the aspen. Usually suckers are more vigorous than the source tree as is the case with naturally regenerated trees versus planted stock.

Plate 5 Aspen Suckering

Conclusions 1. The height of the initial aspen planting stock is the dominating factor which governs survival and to a lesser extent growth rates. Cell grown 40-60cm aspen planting stock should be used especially if herbicide treatment is limited. 2. Ground preparation (mounding in this case) increases the productivity of larger aspen trees and both the survival rate and productivity of smaller aspen trees by reducing vegetation competition and increasing drainage. 3. There are clonal factors which are secondary to the above but govern both survival and growth rates. 4. Relative clonal performance will vary depending on local site factors. 5. Downy willow can successfully establish on former mine land where water logged compacted soils prevail. 6. Juniper should not be ruled out as a species on former mine land, but planting should be limited to drier areas. 7. Natural regeneration of a range of locally occurring species can be more vigorous than planted stock but is unpredictable and is reliant on a local seed source.

Recommendations The findings of the Skares trial will help to steer future planting strategies. The main points to be taken are as follows: 1. Larger aspen trees can be directly planted on undisturbed ground with care to avoid water logged areas and standing water. In these areas willows should be selected. Juniper can be planted on mounds if ground preparation is employed or directly planted into undisturbed drier ground e.g. slopes and knolls. 2. If mechanical ground preparation is employed then drainage ditches should be excavated to reduce areas of standing water and intermittent flooding. However large wet areas should be considered for retention for wetland habitat creation. 3. More clone trials should be undertaken on former mine land with a range of different ground conditions. 4. Other willow species could be trialed including for example Tea-leaved willow (Salix phylicofolia), Dark Leaved willow (Salix myrsinifolia), Creeping willow (Salix repens), and perhaps some montane willows such as Woolly willow (Salix lanata) and Mountain willow (Salix arbuscula). 5. In terms of designing other trials, ploughing would be a preferential method of ground preparation over mounding to aid orientation and locating individual trees and blocks of species/clones for monitoring. 6. Coppicing of the well established larger aspen could be trialed to assess if this provokes suckering. It would also be useful to monitor sucker growth to compare to planted stock. 7. Species diversity is typically limited in natural regeneration and can include unfavorable species for habitat creation (Sitka Spruce). Enhancement planting should therefore be considered. 8. It would be informative to trial direct planting of cuttings taken from regenerated willow.

5.0 Wider Implications and Future Trials

Since the initiation of the Growing Green Energy Project and the establishment of the Skares Field Trial, the mining sector in Scotland has undergone fundamental change. Following the demise of two of the major operators Scottish Coal and ATH, Hargreaves inherited seven mines where there were deemed to be workable reserves with the remaining unviable sites including unrestored or partially restored sites being transferred to the Scottish Mine Restoration Trust (SMRT) whose role it is to find solutions and prospective developers to restore sites. Following a short period where Hargreaves resumed workings at these sites, the price of coal and general demand have both fallen and production has now stopped at all but one site.

Due to a complex set of circumstances, there has been a major funding shortfall for opencast site restoration, which is understood to be in the region of £180m, leaving a massive legacy of unrestored derelict mining land, which accounts for around 2000Ha in East Ayrshire alone.

There is perhaps a greater need than ever to find cost effective solutions to site restoration including their landscaping and reforestation and the learning from the Skares trial is highly relevant. Eadha believes that the learning from the Skares trial can be taken and developed further to create a model for cost effective landscaping and reforestation. Reforestation with native resilient species such as aspen which has the potential to produce a productive crop can offer the hope of generating the widest range of social, economic and environmental benefits for local communities.

A Model for Landscaping and Reforestation Since the establishment of the Skares trial Eadha has been undertaking further research with a view to developing a second phase of field trials on opencast sites, which will build on the findings at Skares.

One new consideration has been the relatively recent recognition of Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL) and their value for biodiversity with this habitat bing included as a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) priority habitat. Opencast mines until recently have been largely overlooked as sites for such habitats with the focus being bings and other smaller and more varied areas of vacant and derelict land often in urban and semi-urban areas. However the natural regeneration found to have occurred at Skares reinforces the fact that unrestored mine sites will “green up” if left to nature and demonstrate significant variability at a larger scale.

On this basis and taking the findings of the Skares trial, we would suggest that natural regeneration on OCCSs should be embraced, encouraged, protected and enhanced. This should be a starting point to develop a landscape plan which works with nature and which inevitably minimizes human inputs and therefore restoration costs.

Areas of natural vegetation regeneration including forbs as well as trees can also be used as a guide to where to focus enhancement planting. It is often the most nutrient deficient or wetter areas of a site which can include bare ground which are least suitable for planting but which offer the greatest potential to contribute to long term habitat diversity as open ground. Planting in such areas should be avoided and instead focused on areas of more vigorous regeneration. While this can be seen as challenging in terms of competition for any planting scheme, it can also be used to good effect as a nurse for tree establishment, providing some protection with some intervention and controls.

“Enhanced Natural Regeneration” The Skares trial shows that there is potential to establish pioneer trees on former OCCSs with minimum ground preparation or soil amendment. However, it could be argued that with extreme budgetary constraints we need to look to innovative establishment techniques which even preclude the need for costly fencing, ground preparation and tree protection.

Eadha has come up with the term “Enhanced Natural Regeneration” to describe the approach to mine landscaping and reforestation. In developing this model it was found to be highly instructive and useful to consider the principles of both permaculture and rewilding (Appendix 8) which are topical approaches to land and ecological restoration.

Species Enhancement The question for Vacant and Derelict Land (VDL) or OCCSs restoration and greening is not so much what kind of landscape we want to create but what kind of landscape are we able to create. Given the constraints outlined, it may not be a financially viable option nor an ecological sustainable option to consider the establishment of a blanket woodland cover using conventional means. Taking the findings of the Skares trial and based on further research, Eadha believes that with early intervention and taking a sensitive approach to site landscaping, a resilient and dynamic landscape can be created or (enhanced) which will develop over time to create the best end result. This will inevitably be a mosaic of interconnected ecosystems. While it has been shown that natural regeneration can occur across browfield sites and naturally evolving open mosaic habitats can form, the extensive and open area of OCCSs, which are typically located in barren upland environments or alternatively surrounded by intensively managed agricultural land or commercial forestry, means that the successional process is very slow and with limited diversity. This can be illustrated at Skares where natural regeneration was largely restricted to willow and Sitka Spruce, the latter perhaps not necessarily being desirable. However, natural regeneration can be enhanced by increasing the species diversity to include for example aspen, other less common willow species, juniper as well as other native pioneer species such as birch and alder.

Natural Tree Protection To minimize costs fence-free techniques could also be practiced. For example using “Natural Tree Protection” which could include the establishment of scrub thickets and the use of clump planting. Direct seeding might also be employed where there is bare ground. It is suggested that the same pioneer scrub species could be established by such methods, whereby seeds are dispersed by hand. Gorse would be most appropriate for this method, with seed/branches collected from established thickets collected and distributed across open areas.

Scrub Protection Scrub protection comprises the use of key plants which are relatively unpalatable and can present a physical barrier to other more palatable tree species, which are established to form an initial scrub habitat. The scrub would form protective cover against deer for subsequent trees to be established by either under-planting and/or natural regeneration. Specific pioneer species can be planted within the scrub for additional biodiversity benefits including aspen, juniper, dwarf birch and other willow species. However longer term regeneration sites such as Skares where there is already developing scrub community, under- planting could take place.

If establishing scrub, it is suggested that thorny species should be selected to protect against grazers, for example, Gorse, Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Holly, Wild Rose, Bramble, Broom and Raspberry. Some of these species such as gorse, are nitrogen fixers, and will act as a nurse crop for subsequent tree establishment. At Skares there was evidence of Hawthorn, Wild Raspberry, and Wild Rose regenerating naturally. In the short term these scrub thickets can provide an attractive landscape feature and a rich habitat in their own right. Indeed scrub forms a key component of OMHPDL. On OCCSs, thorny scrub planting also has the added use of acting as a barrier to access where the public needs to be kept away from hazardous areas of sites for example tip edges/steep slopes, water bodies etc. As far as we are aware, scrub protection has never been trialed on brownfield sites in the UK.

Plate 6 Intermediate phase of natural succession towards woodland cover (Merryweather 2012)

Gorse itself is often termed a “woodland in waiting”. It can easily be established being little browsed after its first two years of life. Gorse specifically is an ideal nurse crop as it also does important work preparing the soil, lowering acidity, increasing available nitrogen and encouraging phosphate cycling. Gorse is also useful in acid soils where it can sequester calcium from the subsoil and return the element to the topsoil when it dies thus making the subsoil more acidic and the topsoil less acidic. It also provides a physical protection from browsing animals and wind. The branches can also be easily cut and packed around the base of young trees to provide additional protection against small browsing animals. The scrub thickets will also provide good bird habitat and the birds will accumulate phosphates in their droppings which will also benefit soil regeneration. Gorse also spends much of the year flowering, which attracts insects, including bees.

Clump Planting Clump planting if successful, can be a quicker and cheaper method of tree establishment than scrub protection, however, this will be dependent on the browsing pressure. The method is based on the principle that a dense clump of trees can act as a barrier to herbivores such as roe deer or sheep, by providing sacrificial or less palatable species on the perimeter protecting more palatable species towards the centre. Typically the sacrificial trees will be fast growing and/or cheap to procure. For example willows can be easily planted using cuttings sourced from other mine sites, alder can be fast growing on mine sites and birch can readily regenerate from seed to create dense thickets. If browsing pressure is high, it may not be cost effective or feasible to adopt this method if a large proportion of the sacrificial stock is lost.

Towards the centre of clumps more palatable species are established including for example Aspen. Juniper is relatively palatable especially when young although can afford protection when mature. It would be informative therefore to trial juniper in unfenced areas such as at Skares where there is roe deer but no sheep farming. Again as we are aware, there have been no clump planting trials undertaken to date in the UK (SNH, 2013).

Additional Recommendations 1. Exploit the area of willow regeneration to the north of the trial enclosure at Skares to test natural protection methods by under-planting throughout with aspen and juniper. 2. Trial the establishment of planting a range of thorny species using nursery stock on a range of former mining sites. 3. If establishment of thorny species is successful, then undertake scrub protection trials by underplanting with palatable species. 4. Trial the use of direct planting of willow cuttings from areas of natural regeneration. These could also be used for natural protection. 5. Within the Skares enclosure, use clumps of tall forbs such as Rosebay Willowherb as a nurse by clearing patches within a clump 6. Undertake direct seeding trials using gorse which is known to readily set seed and germinate on poor ground. Different methods could be tested including for example the spreading of seeding branches together with the collection of seed and its dispersal.

References

Merryweather James; Gorse: woodland in waiting; Conservation Land Management Spring 2012 Vol 10 Number 1

Establishing trees without fences in Scotland; Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 558 (2013)

Open mosaic habitats on previously developed land: survey and recommendations for habitat planning and management in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 606

Eadha Enterprises, Growing Green Energy Phase 1 Final Report, March 2012

Wilson, Scott McG; Scoping applied research and tree breeding requirements for native upland biomass crops, A Report to Future Trees Trust - June 2014;

Eadha Enterprises www.eadha.co.uk [email protected] Scottish Charity Number SC043952 Incorporated as a Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in Scotland Number SC395120

Appendix 1 Soil Depth and Elevation Survey

Appendix 2 Planting Block Layout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 12345678910 12345678910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 12345678910 12341234567891234567891234512345678910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1234512345678910

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

KEY SCALE: each square = 2m x 2m

Eadha Mixed Aspen Clones NOTE: Numbered squares with white border to be monitored

Downy willow

Juniper

Aspen Clone Reference EECG036 EECG042 EECG037 EECG018 EECG127 Christie Elite Mix EERE005 EECG069 EECG033 EECG067 EECG116 EECG129 EECG119 EECG048 EEDG009

Appendix 3 Trial Site Layout

N GA T E

BLOCK 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 12345678910 12345678910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 12345678910 12341234567891234567891234512345678910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1234512345678910

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

BLOCK 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 123456789# 123456789# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 123456789##123412345678912345678912345123456789# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 12345123456789#

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 #

BLOCK 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 123456789# 123456789# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 123456789##123412345678912345678912345123456789# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 12345123456789#

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 #

Appendix 4 Natural Regeneration

Tormentil Wild Rose

Marsh Bedstraw/Forget-me-not Orchid

Willow Regeneration adjacent to enclosure

Willow Regeneration around water body in wider site

Willow and Sitka Spruce regeneration within enclosure (with giant fly)

Appendix 5 Round 3 Monitoring Results

Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 1

Clone/Species No Date Survival Height (cm)Planting Position Damage Recorder Salix lapponum 1 19/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 2 19/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 3 19/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 4 19/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 5 19/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 6 19/07/2016 N M PL Salix lapponum 7 19/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 8 19/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 9 19/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 10 19/07/2016 Y M PL

EECG036 1 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG036 2 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG036 3 19/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG036 4 19/07/2016Y 22GL - IF PL EECG036 5 19/07/2016N NA BGL - SW PL EECG036 6 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG036 7 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG036 8 19/07/2016Y 52GL - IF PL EECG036 9 19/07/2016N NA BGL - SW PL EECG036 10 19/07/2016N NA LM - IF PL

EECG127 1 19/07/2016Y 25GL - IF PL EECG127 2 19/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG127 3 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG127 4 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG127 5 19/07/2016Y 25GL - SW PL EECG127 6 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG127 7 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL

EECG018 1 19/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG018 2 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG018 3 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG018 4 19/07/2016Y 38GL - IF PL

EECG037 1 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG037 2 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG037 3 19/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG037 4 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG037 5 19/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG037 6 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG037 7 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG037 8 19/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG037 9 19/07/2016Y 23GL - IF PL EECG037 10 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL

EECG042 1 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG042 2 19/07/2016Y 50GL - SW PL EECG042 3 19/07/2016Y 110GL - IF PL EECG042 4 19/07/2016Y 65GL - IF PL EECG042 5 19/07/2016Y 90GL PL EECG042 6 19/07/2016N NA LM PL EECG042 719/07/2016Y 80M PL EECG042 8 19/07/2016Y 75GL PL EECG042 9 19/07/2016Y 42GL PL EECG042 10 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL

Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 1

Christies Elite Mix 1 19/07/2016 Y 50 BGL - SW PL Christies Elite Mix 2 19/07/2016 Y 78 GL - IF PL Christies Elite Mix 3 19/07/2016 Y 75 GL - IF PL Christies Elite Mix 4 19/07/2016 Y 80 GL - IF PL Christies Elite Mix 5 19/07/2016 Y 99 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 6 19/07/2016 Y 90 GL - IF PL Christies Elite Mix 7 19/07/2016 Y 100 GL - IF PL Christies Elite Mix 8 19/07/2016 Y 126 GL - IF PL Christies Elite Mix 9 19/07/2016 Y 34 BGL PL Christies Elite Mix 10 19/07/2016 Y 72 GL - SW PL

EECG129 1 19/07/2016Y 108LM PL EECG129 2 19/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG129 3 19/07/2016Y 36GL - IF PL EECG129 419/07/2016Y 62M PL EECG129 5 19/07/2016Y 32LM PL EECG129 6 19/07/2016Y 123LM PL EECG129 7 19/07/2016Y 90LM PL EECG129 8 19/07/2016Y 56LM PL EECG129 9 19/07/2016Y 120LM PL EECG129 10 19/07/2016N NA GL PL

EECG116 1 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG116 2 19/07/2016Y 23GL - IF PL EECG116 3 19/07/2016Y 32GL - IF PL EECG116 4 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL

EECG067 1 NO TREE EECG067 2 19/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG067 3 19/07/2016N NA BGL - SW PL EECG067 4 19/07/2016N NA BGL - SW PL EECG067 5 19/07/2016Y 37GL - IF PL EECG067 6 19/07/2016Y 63GL - IF PL EECG067 7 19/07/2016Y 29GL - SW PL EECG067 8 19/07/2016Y 35GL - IF PL EECG067 9 19/07/2016Y 36GL - IF PL

EECG120 1 NO TREE EECG120 2 19/07/2016Y 50GL PL EECG120 3 19/07/2016Y 26GL - IF PL EECG120 4 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG120 5 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG120 6 19/07/2016Y 76GL - IF PL EECG120 7 19/07/2016Y 20GL - SW PL EECG120 8 19/07/2016Y 42GL PL EECG120 9 19/07/2016N NA GL PL

EECG069 1 19/07/2016Y 22GL - SW PL EECG069 2 19/07/2016Y 20BGL - SW PL EECG069 3 19/07/2016Y 60GL - IF PL EECG069 4 19/07/2016Y 42GL - IF PL EECG069 5 19/07/2016Y 50GL - IF PL

Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 1

Clone/Species No Date Survival Height (cm)Planting Position Damage Recorder EERE005 1 NO TREE EERE005 2 NO TREE EERE005 3 NO TREE EERE005 4 NO TREE EERE005 519/07/2016Y 128M PL EERE005 6 19/07/2016N NA GL PL EERE005 7 19/07/2016Y 125GL PL EERE005 8 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EERE005 9 19/07/2016Y 111GL PL EERE005 10 19/07/2016Y 62GL - IF PL

EECG119 119/07/2016N NA M PL EECG119 219/07/2016N NA M PL EECG119 3 19/07/2016Y 88LM PL EECG119 4 19/07/2016Y 70GL PL EECG119 5 19/07/2016N NA LM PL EECG119 6 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG119 7 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG119 8 NO TREE EECG119 9 NO TREE EECG119 10 NO TREE

EECG048 1 19/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG048 2 19/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG048 3 19/07/2016N NA LM PL EECG048 4 19/07/2016Y 29GL PL EECG048 5 NO TREE

EEDG009 1 19/07/2016N NA GL PL EEDG009 2 19/07/2016Y 26LM PL EEDG009 3 19/07/2016Y 27GL - IF PL EEDG009 4 19/07/2016Y 64GL - IF PL EEDG009 5 19/07/2016N NA GL PL EEDG009 6 19/07/2016Y 59BGL PL EEDG009 719/07/2016Y 45M PL EEDG009 8 19/07/2016N NA GL PL EEDG009 9 19/07/2016Y 44LM PL EEDG009 10 19/07/2016Y 31LM PL

Juniper 119/07/2016N GL PL Juniper 219/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 319/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 419/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 519/07/2016N M PL Juniper 619/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 719/07/2016Y GL PL Juniper 8 NO TREE Juniper 9 NO TREE Juniper 1019/07/2016Y LM PL

Note 1: Damage includes: shoot/branch death, development of multiple leaders, browsing animal damage, physical damage

Note 2: Planting Position should record if on clod, or on level ground, any standing water etc

Note 3. EECG120 was formerly incorrectly noted as EECG033

Note 4: GL = Planted on ground; BGL = below ground level; M = planted on top of mound; LM = Side or foot of mound; U = undermined; SW = standing water; IF = intermittent flooding

Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 2

Clone/Species No Date Survival Height (cm)PlanMing PosiMion Damage Recorder Salix lapponum 1 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 2 18/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 3 18/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 4 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 5 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 6 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 7 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 8 18/07/2016 Y GL - SW PL Salix lapponum 9 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 10 18/07/2016 Y LM PL

EECG036 118/07/2016N NA M PL EECG036 218/07/2016Y 60GL PL EECG036 318/07/2016N NA LM PL EECG036 418/07/2016Y 45LM - U PL EECG036 518/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG036 618/07/2016N NA LM PL EECG036 718/07/2016Y 40LM PL EECG036 818/07/2016Y 50M PL EECG036 918/07/2016Y 36LM PL EECG036 1018/07/2016Y 80M PL

EECG127 118/07/2016Y 55LM PL EECG127 218/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG127 318/07/2016Y 24GL PL EECG127 418/07/2016N NA BGL PL EECG127 518/07/2016Y 56GL PL EECG127 618/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG127 718/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL

EECG018 118/07/2016N NA BGL - SW PL EECG018 218/07/2016N NA BGL - SW PL EECG018 318/07/2016Y 28BGL - IF PL EECG018 418/07/2016N NA BGL - SW PL

EECG037 118/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG037 218/07/2016Y 26GL PL EECG037 318/07/2016Y 26GL PL EECG037 418/07/2016Y 62LM PL EECG037 518/07/2016Y 26M PL EECG037 618/07/2016N NA GL-SW PL EECG037 718/07/2016Y 27GL-SW PL EECG037 818/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG037 918/07/2016Y 21LM PL EECG037 1018/07/2016N NA GL-SW PL

EECG042 118/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG042 218/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG042 318/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG042 418/07/2016N NA M PL EECG042 518/07/2016Y 55GL PL EECG042 618/07/2016Y 60GL PL EECG042 718/07/2016Y 44GL PL EECG042 818/07/2016Y 39GL PL EECG042 918/07/2016Y 45GL PL EECG042 1018/07/2016Y 34GL PL

Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 2

Clone/Species No Date Survival Height (cm)PlanMing PosiMion Damage Recorder Christies Elite Mix 1 18/07/2016 Y 59 BGL - SW PL Christies Elite Mix 2 18/07/2016 Y 70 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 3 18/07/2016 Y 67 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 4 18/07/2016 Y 77 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 5 18/07/2016 Y 64 GL-SW PL Christies Elite Mix 6 18/07/2016 Y 62 GL - IF PL Christies Elite Mix 7 18/07/2016 Y 50 GL-SW PL Christies Elite Mix 8 18/07/2016 Y 84 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 9 18/07/2016 N NA GL PL Christies Elite Mix 10 18/07/2016 Y 92 GL PL

EECG129 118/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG129 218/07/2016Y 50GL PL EECG129 318/07/2016Y 30GL PL EECG129 418/07/2016Y 110M PL EECG129 518/07/2016Y 32GL - IT PL EECG129 618/07/2016N NA GL-SW PL EECG129 718/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG129 818/07/2016N NA LM PL EECG129 918/07/2016Y 120GL PL EECG129 1018/07/2016Y 122LM PL

EECG116 118/07/2016N NA BGL-SW PL EECG116 218/07/2016N NA GL-SW PL EECG116 318/07/2016N NA BGL - SW PL EECG116 418/07/2016Y 65BGL PL

EECG067 118/07/2016N NA BGL - IF PL EECG067 218/07/2016Y 56BGL - SW PL EECG067 318/07/2016Y 43BGL - SW PL EECG067 418/07/2016Y 46GL - SW PL EECG067 518/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG067 618/07/2016N NA BGL - IF PL EECG067 718/07/2016Y 56BGL - IF PL EECG067 818/07/2016Y 55BGL PL EECG067 918/07/2016Y 44BGL - IF PL

EECG120 118/07/2016N NA BGL PL EECG120 218/07/2016N NA BGL PL EECG120 318/07/2016N NA LM - U PL EECG120 418/07/2016N NA M - U PL EECG120 518/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG120 618/07/2016N NA BGL - IF PL EECG120 718/07/2016N NA BGL - IF PL EECG120 818/07/2016Y 36GL PL EECG120 918/07/2016Y 27BGL PL

EECG069 118/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG069 218/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG069 318/07/2016Y 24LM - IF PL EECG069 418/07/2016Y 26LM - IF PL EECG069 518/07/2016Y 60LM - IF PL

Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 2

Clone/Species No Date Survival Height (cm)PlanMing PosiMion Damage Recorder

EERE005 118/07/2016Y 78LM PL EERE005 218/07/2016Y 74LM PL EERE005 318/07/2016Y 107GL PL EERE005 418/07/2016Y 115LM PL EERE005 518/07/2016Y 62GL PL EERE005 618/07/2016Y 116LM PL EERE005 718/07/2016Y 120LM PL EERE005 818/07/2016Y 42GL PL EERE005 918/07/2016Y 116LM PL EERE005 1018/07/2016Y 170LM PL

EECG119 118/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG119 218/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG119 318/07/2016N NA LM PL EECG119 418/07/2016N NA LM PL EECG119 518/07/2016Y 60GL PL EECG119 618/07/2016N NA M PL EECG119 718/07/2016Y 29M PL EECG119 818/07/2016Y 36M PL EECG119 918/07/2016Y 80M PL EECG119 1018/07/2016N NA LM PL

EECG048 118/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG048 218/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG048 318/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EECG048 418/07/2016 NO TREE EECG048 518/07/2016Y 33GL - SW PL

EEDG009 118/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EEDG009 218/07/2016Y 27GL - IF PL EEDG009 318/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EEDG009 418/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EEDG009 518/07/2016Y 15GL PL EEDG009 618/07/2016N NA GL PL EEDG009 718/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EEDG009 818/07/2016N NA GL-SW PL EEDG009 918/07/2016N NA GL - IF PL EEDG009 1018/07/2016N NA BGL PL

Juniper 118/07/2016N GL PL Juniper 218/07/2016Y GL PL Juniper 318/07/2016N GL PL Juniper 4 18/07/2016 N GL - SW PL Juniper 5 18/07/2016 N GL - SW PL Juniper 618/07/2016N GL PL Juniper 718/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 818/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 918/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 1018/07/2016Y M PL

Note 1: Damage includes: shoot/branch death, development of multiple leaders, browsing animal damage, physical damage

Note 2: Planting Position should record if on clod, or on level ground, any standing water etc

Note 3. EECG120 was formerly incorrectly noted as EECG033 Note 4: GL = Planted on ground; BGL = below ground level; M = planted on top of mound; LM = Side or foot of mound; U = undermined; SW = standing water; IF = intermittent flooding Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 3

Clone/Species No Date Survival Height (cm)Planting Position Damage Recorder Salix lapponum 1 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 2 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 3 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 4 18/07/2016 Y M PL Salix lapponum 5 18/07/2016 N GL - SW PL Salix lapponum 6 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 7 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 8 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 9 18/07/2016 Y GL PL Salix lapponum 10 18/07/2016 Y GL PL

EECG036 118/07/2016Y 60M PL EECG036 218/07/2016Y 67M PL EECG036 318/07/2016Y 77M PL EECG036 418/07/2016N NA M PL EECG036 518/07/2016Y 89M PL EECG036 618/07/2016Y 75M PL EECG036 718/07/2016Y 50M PL EECG036 818/07/2016Y 76M PL EECG036 918/07/2016Y 85M PL EECG036 1018/07/2016N NA M PL

EECG127 118/07/2016Y 27M PL EECG127 218/07/2016Y 58M PL EECG127 318/07/2016Y 53M PL EECG127 418/07/2016N NA M PL EECG127 5 18/07/2016 Y 60 M Beneath willow bush PL EECG127 618/07/2016N NA M PL EECG127 718/07/2016Y 50M PL

EECG018 118/07/2016Y 44M PL EECG018 218/07/2016Y 55M PL EECG018 318/07/2016N NA M PL EECG018 4 18/07/2016 N NA M Beneath willow bush PL

EECG037 118/07/2016Y 75M PL EECG037 218/07/2016N NA M PL EECG037 318/07/2016N NA M PL EECG037 418/07/2016Y 54M PL EECG037 518/07/2016Y 40M PL EECG037 618/07/2016Y 62M PL EECG037 718/07/2016N NA M PL EECG037 818/07/2016Y 118M PL EECG037 918/07/2016Y 119M PL EECG037 1018/07/2016Y 82M PL

EECG042 118/07/2016Y 103LM PL EECG042 218/07/2016Y 42GL PL EECG042 318/07/2016Y 98LM PL EECG042 418/07/2016Y 49LM PL EECG042 518/07/2016Y 66LM PL EECG042 618/07/2016Y 112M PL EECG042 718/07/2016Y 88M PL EECG042 818/07/2016Y 75M PL EECG042 918/07/2016Y 42M PL EECG042 1018/07/2016N NA M PL

Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 3

Clone/Species No Date Survival Height (cm)Planting Position Damage Recorder Christies Elite Mix 1 18/07/2016 Y 84 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 2 18/07/2016 Y 100 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 3 18/07/2016 Y 58 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 4 18/07/2016 Y 49 GL - SW Die back of leader PL Christies Elite Mix 5 18/07/2016 Y 49 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 6 18/07/2016 Y 56 BGL - SW PL Christies Elite Mix 7 18/07/2016 Y 70 GL - IF Beneath willow bush PL Christies Elite Mix 8 18/07/2016 Y 62 GL PL Christies Elite Mix 9 18/07/2016 Y 111 M PL Christies Elite Mix 10 18/07/2016 Y 70 GL - IF PL

EECG129 118/07/2016Y 56BGL - SW PL EECG129 218/07/2016Y 78GL PL EECG129 318/07/2016Y 66GL PL EECG129 418/07/2016Y 112M PL EECG129 518/07/2016Y 80GL PL EECG129 618/07/2016Y 72GL PL EECG129 718/07/2016Y 116LM PL EECG129 818/07/2016Y 96GL PL EECG129 918/07/2016Y 113GL PL EECG129 1018/07/2016Y 60GL PL

EECG116 118/07/2016Y 51M PL EECG116 218/07/2016Y 112M PL EECG116 318/07/2016Y 68M PL EECG116 418/07/2016Y 64M PL

EECG067 118/07/2016Y 61M PL EECG067 218/07/2016Y 62M PL EECG067 318/07/2016Y 96GL PL EECG067 418/07/2016Y 63M PL EECG067 518/07/2016Y 60GL PL EECG067 618/07/2016Y 79GL PL EECG067 718/07/2016Y 82GL PL EECG067 818/07/2016N NA GL PL EECG067 918/07/2016Y 35GL PL

EECG120 118/07/2016Y 20GL - SW PL EECG120 218/07/2016Y 67M PL EECG120 318/07/2016Y 25GL - SW PL EECG120 418/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG120 518/07/2016Y 47GL - SW PL EECG120 618/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG120 718/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL EECG120 818/07/2016Y 38GL - SW PL EECG120 918/07/2016N NA GL - SW PL

EECG069 118/07/2016Y 100M PL EECG069 218/07/2016N NA M PL EECG069 318/07/2016N NA M PL EECG069 418/07/2016Y 82M PL EECG069 518/07/2016N NA M PL

Eadha Enterprises Growing Green Energy Project - Skares Field Trial Monitoring Record Sheet Block: 3

Clone/Species No Date Survival Height (cm)Planting Position Damage Recorder EERE005 118/07/2016Y 154M PL EERE005 218/07/2016Y 116M PL EERE005 318/07/2016Y 138M PL EERE005 418/07/2016Y 88M PL EERE005 518/07/2016Y 107M PL EERE005 618/07/2016Y 67M PL EERE005 718/07/2016Y 76M PL EERE005 818/07/2016Y 77M PL EERE005 918/07/2016Y 79M PL EERE005 1018/07/2016Y 103M PL

EECG119 118/07/2016Y 56M PL EECG119 218/07/2016Y 36GL PL EECG119 318/07/2016Y 59M PL EECG119 418/07/2016Y 39GL PL EECG119 518/07/2016Y 51BGL - SW PL EECG119 618/07/2016Y 65GL - SW PL EECG119 7 18/07/2016 Y 118 M Beneath willow bush PL EECG119 818/07/2016Y 70M PL EECG119 918/07/2016Y 60M PL EECG119 1018/07/2016Y 94M PL

EECG048 118/07/2016Y 75GL PL EECG048 218/07/2016Y 73GL PL EECG048 318/07/2016Y 60GL PL EECG048 418/07/2016Y 37GL PL EECG048 518/07/2016Y 48GL PL

EEDG009 118/07/2016Y 81M PL EEDG009 218/07/2016Y 77M PL EEDG009 318/07/2016Y 65GL PL EEDG009 418/07/2016Y 66M PL EEDG009 518/07/2016Y 112M PL EEDG009 618/07/2016Y 51M PL EEDG009 718/07/2016Y 54M PL EEDG009 818/07/2016Y 64M PL EEDG009 918/07/2016Y 111M PL EEDG009 10 18/07/2016 NO TREE

Juniper 118/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 218/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 318/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 418/07/2016N M PL Juniper 5 18/07/2016 Y GL - SW PL Juniper 618/07/2016Y M PL Juniper 718/07/2016N GL PL Juniper 818/07/2016Y GL PL Juniper 9 18/07/2016 N GL - SW PL Juniper 1018/07/2016N BGL - SW PL

Note 1: Damage includes: shoot/branch death, development of multiple leaders, browsing animal damage, physical damage

Note 2: Planting Position should record if on clod, or on level ground, any standing water etc

Appendix 6 Analysis of Results

Table 1 Summary

Overall Survival Rate (%) M/LM (%) GL (%) BGL (%) GL/BGL - SW/IF (%) Av. H. (cm) H Range (cm) Av. H. - M/LM (cm)Av. H. - GL (cm) Christie Elite Mix 100 100 100 100 100 74 34 - 126 111 76 EERE005 92 100 83NA 50 10142 - 170 107 89 EECG129 80 92 71NA 75 8132 - 123 95 76 EECG067 73 100 83NA 62 5529 - 96 62 70 EECG042 73 75 83NA 50 6634 - 112 79 53 EECG069 67 40NA NA 80 4920 - 100 91NA EEDG009 62 100 33 50 33 5715 - 112 63 40 EECG119 59 59 80NA 40 6329 - 118 69 51 EECG116 58 100NA NA 28 5923 - 112 74NA EECG048 54NA 100 17 5129 - 75 NA 54 EECG036 53 72 33NA 0 6022 - 89 65 60 EECG127 48 75 40NA 25 4324 - 60 50 40 EECG037 47 77 67NA 14 5421 - 119 66 26 EECG120 46NA 60 33 47 4020 - 67 67 43 EECG018 33 50 0NA 25 4128 - 55 49NA Aspen 63 80 64 61 43 60 Juniper 61 87 38NA 20 Downy Willow 93 93 100 NA 100 Note: GL = Planted on ground; BGL = below ground level; M = planted on top of mound; LM = Side or foot of mound; U = undermined; SW = standing water; IF = intermittent flooding

Table 2 Clone Elevation Ranking

Clone Seed Zone Elevation (m) Ranking (elevation)

Christie-Elite Mix 201 na

EECG018 na na

EECG129 na na

EERE005 107 340 1

EEDG009 108 330 2

EECG069 201 230 3

EECG042 202 210 4

EECG067 109 200 5

EECG127 102 194 6

EECG119 102 80 7

EECG036 108 50 8

EECG037 203 40 9

EECG116 102 38 10

EECG120 102 30 11

EECG048 106 15 12

Clone Ranking (elevation) Survival - GL (%) Clone Ranking (elevation) Survival - M/LM (%) Christies Elite Mix 100 EECG116 10 100 EECG048 12 100 EEDG009 2 100 EECG042 4 83 EECG067 5 100 EECG067 5 83 EERE005 1 100 EERE005 1 83 Christies Elite Mix 100 EECG119 7 80 EECG129 92 EECG129 71 EECG037 9 77 EECG037 9 67 EECG127 6 75

EECG120 11 60 EECG042 4 75 EECG127 6 40 EECG036 8 72 EECG036 8 33 EECG119 7 59

EEDG009 2 33 EECG018 50 EECG018 0 EECG069 3 40

Table 3 Elevation/Survival (GL) Table 4 Elevation/Survival (M/LM)

Clone Ranking - elevation H % increase (M/LM) Clone Ranking - elevation H % increase (GL)

EERE005 1 1138 EECG036 8 645 EECG129na 960 EECG120 11 566 EECG042 4 929 EECG048 12 540 EECG037 9 776 EECG129 na 481 EECG120 11 705 EECG037 9 433 EECG127 6 625 EECG119 7 408 EECG119 7 622 EERE005 1 394 EECG067 5 564 EECG127 6 392

EECG036 8 533 EECG067 5 376 EECG069 3 532 EEDG009 2 374 EECG116 10 521 EECG042 4 366 EEDG009 2 508 Christie-Elite Mix na 155 EECG018na 316

Table 5 Elevation/Growth (M/LM) Table 6 Elevation/Growth (GL)

Clone Height Ranking Survival - M/LM (%) Clone Height Ranking Survival - GL (%) EECG116 3 100 Christie-Elite Mix – 1 100 EEDG009 4 100 EECG048 10 100

EECG067 7 100 EECG042 6 83 EERE005 10 100 EECG067 3 83 EECG129 8 92 EERE005 2 83 EECG037 12 77 EECG119 7 80

EECG127 13 75 EECG129 5 71 EECG042 11 75 EECG037 14 67 EECG036 5 72 EECG120 13 60 EECG119 6 59 EECG127 9 40

EECG018 2 50 EECG036 12 33 EECG069 1 40 EEDG009 8 33 EECG018 11 0

Table 7 Initial Height/Survival (M/LM) Table 8 Initial Height/Survival (GL)

Clone Ranking - FR Trial h h % increase (M/LM) FR trial h (m) - Clone Kilmichael 13yr EECG129 1 960

EECG129 9.5 EECG042 3 929 EECG067 5.7 EECG120 8 705 EECG042 5.5 EECG127 9 625 EECG119 5.5 EECG119 4 622 EECG069 5.3 EECG048 4.8 EECG067 2 564 EECG036 4.7 EECG036 7 533 EECG120 4.6 EECG069 5 532 EECG127 4.4 EECG116 10 521 EECG116 4.2 Table 9 Initial Height/Growth (M/LM) Table 10 Initial Height/Growth (GL)

Clone Ranking (h planted - M/LM) % increase h Clone Ranking (h planted - GL) % increase h EERE005 10 1138 EECG036 11 645 EECG129 8 960 EECG120 12 566 EECG042 11 929 EECG048 10 540

EECG037 12 776 EECG129 5 481

EECG120 9 705 EECG037 13 433 EECG127 13 625 EECG119 7 408 EECG119 6 622 EERE005 2 394 EECG067 7 564 EECG036 5 533 EECG127 0 392 EECG069 1 532 EECG067 3 376 EECG116 3 521 EEDG009 8 374 EEDG009 4 508 EECG042 6 366

EECG018 2 316 Christie-Elite Mix – 1 155

Table 11 Forest Research Growth Trial Ranking Table 12 FR Trial/Growth (M/LM)

Clone Ranking - FR Trial h H % increase (GL) EECG036 7 645 EECG120 8 566 EECG129 1 481

EECG119 4 408 EECG127 9 392 EECG067 2 376 EECG042 3 366

Table 13 FR Trial/Growth (GL)

Appendix 7 Evolving Site Vegetation

Planting (March 2012)

Site Visit (Oct 2014)

Site Visit (July 2016)

Appendix 8 Principles of Rewilding and Permaculture

Principles of Permaculture (extract from Permaculture, a Designers' Manual, by Bill Mollison)

• Work with nature rather than against. • The problem is the solution. • Make the least change for the greatest possible effect. • The yield of a system is theoretically unlimited (or only limited by the imagination and information of the designer). • Everything gardens (or modifies its environment).

Principles of Rewilding (Alan Watson Featherstone; extract from Presentation of 8 th October 2014)

1. Work from areas of strength - the areas where the ecosystem is closest to its natural condition.

2. Pay particular attention to ‘keystone’ species - those on which many others depend.

3. Re-establish ecological processes such as the use of pioneer species, natural succession etc to facilitate the rewilding process.

4. Mimic Nature wherever possible.

5. Re-create ecological niches where they have been lost.

6. Re-establish ecological linkages - reconnect the threads in the web of life.

7. Control and/or remove introduced non-native species

8. Remove or mitigate the limiting factors which prevent rewilding from taking place naturally.

9. Reintroduce species that are unlikely or impossible to return by themselves.

10. Re-establish essential ecological processes, such as predation and natural disturbance, that are absent.

11. Let Nature do most of the work.

12. The ‘green thumb’ principle - love has a tangible, positive effect on all living things to which it is directed.