PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND
Lichens are slow growing and sensitive to physical disturbance. Lichen and dune heaths were severely threatened natural habitats in the lowlands of North West Europe. The largest, continuous area (1 000 – 1 200 ha) is found in the Desert of Anholt, a minor Danish island 11 km long and 6 km wide, in the Kattegat Sea. It isn’t actually ‘desert’, but lichen heath. Anholt’s unique lichen and coastal heaths were threatened, mainly by mountain pine (Pinus mugo) invasion. There was a need for management and restoration of 300-400 ha of the heathland under immediate threat, but the fragile and slow-growing lichen habitat does not tolerate management techniques that use heavy machinery. Consequently, alternative techniques would have to be developed, tested and applied.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the project was to carry out a series of management and restoration activities over 300-400 ha of lichen and dune habitats in the desert of Anholt and, in the process, develop and test new techniques. Activities would begin in the more sensitive east and move to the west. They included manual felling of mountain pine, to be burned on location to avoid the use of wheeled tractors, or chipped up for use in private, small-scale, wood-chip fired heating plants on the island. Altogether some 4 500m³ of wood chip was to be removed. Monitoring the impact on the vegetation of these different methods would also be an important component of the project, as this would be the first time that these habitats will have been properly investigated. The results should provide invaluable practical advice for similar sites across Europe and act as an incentive for their long term conservation. Collaboration with the HEATH project under the EC Environmental Research Programme would be established in order to include the significance of atmospherical nitrogen deposition in the investigations.
RESULTS
The project's main objective of controlling the mountain pine in core areas of the lichen heathland was achieved over 490 ha. This was achieved partly because the relatively small areas where invasive pine was dense were excluded, and more sparsely invaded areas were included because they were considered more important for the heath. Sites chosen for exclusion were those that were considered to be more easily manageable in the future and which would not compromise the overall objective of reducing pine coverage and protecting vulnerable areas. Management techniques were adjusted so that branch crushing and chipping were used rather than manual chainsaw cutting and removal (branch crushing took place on 46 ha and chipping and blowing on 15 ha). Some 40 ha of chainsaw cut material was burnt. In addition, 1 750 m³ of wood chip, one-third of the 5 150 m³ produced, was finally removed or burnt within an area of 43 ha. In the remaining project area, the pine was left at varying densities as crushed branches (leaving 2 250 m³ wood on 30 ha), fine cut wood after chainsaw use (leaving 400 m³ on 411 ha), or chipped wood (leaving 750 m³ of wood on 5 ha). The high needle content of the pine apparently rendered it unsuitable for burning in local heating plants.
The project's proposed methods of scattering chips or shavings was criticised by the local community, which did not consider it was adequately consulted or allowed to gain from the project. The vegetation monitoring indicated that leaving organic material on site would delay recovery of the lichen heath, but not prevent it. It concluded that the principal threat to the heath, that of invading pine, was managed effectively, and the spread to more vulnerable sites was reduced. International dissemination took place and tourist information was produced.The project's main objective of controlling the mountain pine in core areas of the lichen heathland was achieved over 490 ha. This was achieved partly because the relatively small areas where invasive pine was dense were excluded, and more sparsely invaded areas were included because they were considered more important for the heath. Sites chosen for exclusion were those that were considered to be more easily manageable in the future and which would not compromise the overall objective of reducing pine coverage and protecting vulnerable areas. Management techniques were adjusted so that branch crushing and chipping were used rather than manual chainsaw cutting and removal (branch crushing took place on 46 ha and chipping and blowing on 15 ha). Some 40 ha of chainsaw cut material was burnt. In addition, 1 750 m³ of wood chip, one-third of the 5 150 m³ produced, was finally removed or burnt within an area of 43 ha. In the remaining project area, the pine was left at varying densities as crushed branches (leaving 2 250 m³ wood on 30 ha), fine cut wood after chainsaw use (leaving 400 m³ on 411 ha), or chipped wood (leaving 750 m³ of wood on 5 ha). The high needle content of the pine apparently rendered it unsuitable for burning in local heating plants.
The project's proposed methods of scattering chips or shavings was criticised by the local community, which did not consider it was adequately consulted or allowed to gain from the project. The vegetation monitoring indicated that leaving organic material on site would delay recovery of the lichen heath, but not prevent it. It concluded that the principal threat to the heath, that of invading pine, was managed effectively, and the spread to more vulnerable sites was reduced. International dissemination took place and tourist information was produced.