Skip to main content

This site is using cookies to collect anonymous visitor statistics and enhance the user experience. OK | Find out more

PEO header
Main content

News

British ancient forests were patchy

26 November 2009, by Sara Coelho

What were Britain's primordial forests like before humans started tampering with the environment? The latest clues from a study of fossil beetles suggest that the ancient forest was patchy and varied in density across Britain.

The New Forest

Scientists have long debated the nature of Europe's ancient landscape and hesitated between a nightmarish, close-canopied forest and a pasture woodland of oak and hazel trees, similar to the modern New Forest, which is kept open by grazing animals.

This not just an academic question. 'If we want to manage our forests and species to keep them as natural as possible, we have to know what natural is,' says Dr Nicki Whitehouse, a palaeoecologist at Queens University Belfast.

'The Holocene forest was probably patchier than we though: open areas were of local significance and important features of the landscape.'
Dr Nicki Whitehouse,
Queens University Belfast

'The traditional view is that the original Holocene woodland in Europe was quite dense with a closed canopy,' she says. 'But this is probably too simplistic and nowadays the debate is more about the degree of openness of the ancient forest and the role of grazing animals in maintaining this structure.'

Together with Dr David Smith, a specialist on environmental archaeology at the University of Birmingham, Whitehouse decided to look for clues in an overlooked source: ancient beetle remains.

Beetles are a good source of environmental data because it's easy to tell species apart and each type of beetle is specific to a given habitat. Some thrive in dense forests, others prefer sparse woodlands and grassland areas, while dung beetles are usually found in areas grazed by large herbivores. The proportion of beetle species in a given period of time 'allows us to reconstruct past habitats with detail,' explains Whitehouse.

Whitehouse and Smith looked at 26 beetle assemblages from different parts of Britain, from Thorne Moors in Yorkshire to Silbury in Hampshire, and looked at how beetle communities changed over 7000 years, since the end of the Ice Age until 4000 years ago.

They found that the history of the original British forest is not as straightforward as previously thought.

Fossilised beetle shells

Fossil beetle shells

Between 9500 and 6000 BC, the fossils were mostly from open and pasture beetle species, with moderate contributions from forest types and hardly any dung beetles. This suggests open patches of oak, hazel, birch and pine forests of variable tree density, similar to modern pasture woodland.

Around 6000 BC forest beetles become more abundant, grassland species decline and 'we see an overall closing of the forest canopy in the insect record,' says Whitehouse.

By 4000 BC, everything changes. This was the time that humans started pursuing an agricultural way of life, raising animals for meat and dairy products. Dung beetles become more abundant, while the other types of beetles decrease.

'The transition to the Neolithic was rather abrupt,' says Whitehouse. The dense forest gave way to pasture woodlands and open landscapes, kept open by the increasing number of grazing animals feeding on saplings.

The beetles turn the history of the British forest into a complex tale. Instead of a continuous closed canopy forest, Britain was covered by uneven patches of forest, with different levels of openness driven by local phenomena such as storms, forest fires or floods. But grazing animals apparently did not play a role until the beginning of agriculture.

The beetle findings, published last week in Quaternary Science Reviews, largely agree with the data collected from the study of ancient pollen. But 'pollen studies have probably over-estimated the abundance of closed canopy trees and under-estimated the more heterogeneous nature of the landscape at this time,' says Whitehouse. 'The Holocene forest was probably patchier than we though: open areas were of local significance and important features of the landscape.'


Nicki Whitehouse, David Smith. How fragmented was the British Holocene wildwood? Perspectives on the ''Vera'' grazing debate from the fossil beetle record, Quaternary Science Reviews (2009), doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.10.010


Keywords: , ,


Interesting? Spread the word using the 'share' menu on the top right.


Your comments

This is excellent stuff and a real advance on the narrow pollen interpretations which have consistently ignored conflicting evidence from modern ecology. A big question still remains about this so-called 'overall closing of the forest canopy' around 6000 BC - just what density are they implying? We still cannot accurately and reliably interpret the sub-fossil data in terms of precise tree densities. The landscape may have held more of the shadier structures but how much more? All too often wood-decay beetles are used as evidence for closed-canopy but modern faunas clearly demonstrate that rich wood-decay beetle sites are open wood-pastures. This paper is a useful move forward but there is still a long way to go!

Keith Alexander, Exeter UK
Friday, 27 November 2009 - 14:41

British Wildlife 20(5 special supplement) discusses some of the other evidence for and against the openness of the pre-neolithic landscape and the role of large herbivores at that time. These results appear to be consistent with those findings and agree that the landscape was more complex that sometimes presented. I look forward to reading the full paper.

Keith Kirby, Northminster House Peterborough
Friday, 27 November 2009 - 21:14

This is the second paper in which Whitehouse and Smith set up opposites - wood pasture and high canopy woodland - between which they then attempt to mediate. I think everyone has moved on from such a simplistic approach, including the "narrow pollen interpretations which have consistently ignored conflicting evidence from modern ecology". Thus to pollen data can be added this beetle data as well as evidence of the indicatve distribution of fossil remains of beaver, bear, wolf, aurochs and early domesticated cattle, all telling us something about landscapes prior to and after significant human intervention.
The increasing complexity being revealed with each new set of data should not be a surprise in itself, but what it doesn't do is add any particular support for one opposing view or other. Instead, it allows for the heterogenic nature overall of landscapes prior to large scale human intervention, including "nightmarish, close-canopied forest" (Who writes this stuff?)

Mark Fisher, Baildon, West Yorks
Saturday, 28 November 2009 - 10:24

Thanks for the comments so far.

In terms of Keith Alexander's comments - he is absolutely right; we cannot as yet provide any estimate of the canopy cover we are dealing with, but we are getting closer via a series of modern analogue studies, but certainly the levels we see during the earlier part of the Holocene are not dissimilar to pasture woodland. I'm not sure we will get much closer than this, but there is limited evidence for denser canopy forest in all but a handful of sites. Here, we are using the amount of open indicators as much as anything to go by, as well as the types of trees which seem to dominate at this time - more shade-intolerant taxa to start off with, followed by more shade-loving as time progresses. But - we have a rather limited data set to draw from, especially during the earlier Holocene.

Keith Kirby draws attention to the publications in British Wildlife; our work supports these findings and augment the arguments in the context of new analogue research from modern ponds in woodlands.

Mark Fisher rightly points out that other evidence is also contributing to this debate; this is a new review of all the existing fossil beetle data and an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses, how it compares with other paleoenvironmental evidence and in the context of our new modern analogue research. The role of grazing animals in structuring the forest landscape at this time was apparently minimal, which was the starting point of many of the debates and the hypothesis we originally set out to test. In the process of exploring this, however, it became apparent that the record is much more nuanced than the two opposing scenarios set out here.

I'm happy to provide pdf copies of the full paper to anyone who would like a copies.

Nicki Whitehouse, Queen's University Belfast
Monday, 30 November 2009 - 11:37

Thank you for an enlightening article. I am researching the history of woodland in Britain as part of my ongoing work teaching a Forest School Practitioners course ( I am a teacher and Forest School Leader employed by the Oxfordshire County Council. I would be very interested to read the whole article and would like permission to quote from this one when leading a session on the Holocene Wildwood. I would acknowledge all sources. Please would you help me with this? Children in Oxfordshire would benefit from being lead by knowledgeable practitioners!

sarah lawfull, Oxfordshire
Wednesday, 7 April 2010 - 17:28

I am attempting to write a book about the Iron Age PEOPLE in Dorset. Up to reading this very erudite study I had thought that Neolithic to Iron Age farmers used a 'slash and burn' policy to clear woodland. Is there ANY evidence for this?

Mike Godfrey, Ferndown Dorset
Thursday, 27 September 2012 - 11:28

I'm sorry but I dont see how the evidence presented here has any relation to the title or tone of the article. Its claiming that this is new information that should change the way we think about what a natural forest looks like. But far from it, appears to fit with exactly what we would think anyway.

From 11,500 years ago the forests were somewhat patchy and not fully developed, but why should that be surprising? This is the period just after the Ice sheets have retreated, the climate is still quite cold and presumably the soil is in a bad condition, why would we expect to see full-fledged forests so early?

It's only around 8,000 years ago that the conditions become good enough to allow a full climax forest ecosystem, which is exactly what is shown from the evidence. It's just that the dense forests didn't last that long because farming arrived 6,000 years ago.

How does that change the idea that a dense forest is the natural ecosystem for Britain today? It seems to confirm it.

Ross Murphy, Dublin, Ireland
Saturday, 16 March 2013 - 04:40

Share

Social bookmarking:  ()