YOUR headline "Greens unveil plan to reforest grouse moors" (The Herald, August 30) concerns me. The word "reforest" is misleading. Certainly at the beginning of the 20th century Scotland had less than five per cent tree cover, but this lack of trees goes back centuries: even a cursory look at the Roy maps of the 1750s shows that in the Highlands most woods disappeared before the advent of sheep farm-ing, sporting estates and industrial exploitation, when roads were absent, when livestock was wintered indoors, large tracts of the mid and high-altitude land was uninhabited and unused, and wolves were still present. All the evidence points to natural rather than anthropogenic decline of woodland in most places, and such decline also occurred in interglacial periods in the absence of humans: we are in what is termed the "oligocratic phase", a natural phase of soil acidification and woodland loss.
I would ask "reforesters" just to stop for a moment and consider whether it is possible that our open upland landscapes are natural in origin, so that covering them with trees will in fact result in a loss of natural habitat, a loss of biodiversity; that "five per cent woodland cover" in fact should be something distinctly Scottish and something to celebrate in that it makes Scotland distinctive on a European scale. After all, it is not the moorland’s fault that people shoot grouse over it.
Additionally, one needs to be careful in assuming that tree planting in our uplands mitigates global warming: trees can dry out organic soils, releasing more carbon from the soil than what would be stored in trees and also preventing the moors to go on to become deep peat with a high carbon storage potential. Trees also significantly reduce albedo (reflectivity of the land) and so warm up the climate.
Be careful what you wish for.
James Fenton, Oban.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here