golfCharlie. I believe that even the oldest beech (and perhaps even the oak) forests, although very old are also essentially artificial. This is certainly true of Epping Forest which I have known since I was a small boy. Originally this forest was dominated by lime or linden trees but these were all cut down. The beech trees arrived after further Saxon tree felling. Even today we are managing the oldest of our forests. On Countryfile last night one of the idiots that present that show (conveyers of unnecessary purple prose, always wanting to do tasks done by experts themselves or convert the item into a race/competition) visited an ancient oak wood where foresters were cutting down ash trees to give the oaks more light.

Historical documents speak of the impassability of forests in auld England, presumably because of an understory that today we remove artificially. Certainly some of the forested areas of the French Jura are virtually impassable , except along streams.

ACK 5:04

Thanks for the definition! Your "Parkland" roughly equates to the New Forest, or Scottish Deer Forest, and some of the "natural" landscaped parks created by Capability Brown et al.

I believe the Ashford Hangers are naturally sown, but they have been "managed". They are not typical of anything, apart from other woods, grown on chalk at an angle of 30 degrees.

My definition of a forest is like a wood, but bigger! How many of the conifers pines spruces were ever actually native to the UK? Most pines I know of were planted, and are non native.

The traditional image of native deciduous woodland with oaks and beech trees does allow for a wide range of flora beneath the canopy, and freedom of movement for fauna, including man beneath. The felling of a single mature oak or beech will produce a tennis court sized bit of land, construction materials for a simple dwelling, fire wood, and land to grow food. Felling a mature oak with a flint axe could have been done, the Romans would have found it easier, and the Normans easier still. Diarist Samuel Pepys, though a non-sailor, became chief admin for the Navy, and would plant acorns for fear that England would run out of wood.

About 30 years ago, I was talking with someone who had grown up on an African Game Reserve. One of his routine tasks was to "play elephants". Poaching and hunting had reduced elephant numbers, and not enough saplings were being knocked down by elephants wanting a scratching post, or to eat the higher up leaves. The ecology was changing, due to the loss of elephants. "Playing elephants" meant (selectively) chainsawing trees, and leaving them where they fell. I am not sure whether this was to thin-out thickets, or prevent thickets forming where no thickets were allowed to be.

rhoda, the Forestry Commission was started in 1919. The UK had almost run out of timber suitable for trenches and pit props during WW1. No pit props, equalled no coal, and there was insufficient timber to burn instead of coal.

The Royal Navy still had a few ships powered by coal, but all new warships were already oil fired.

I do not know whether that marked the start of planting conifers as a resource in the UK. Coal was cheap, and the preferred fuel, for the steam of the industrial revolution.

With todays subsidy technology, it is necessary to buy unwanted chips of American wood, and transport that in oil fired ships to the UK where it can be burnt.

golfCharlie. Parkland is a technical term for a transition between grassland and forests where trees are widely spaced so as not to form a continuous canopy. The example I know best is the Aspen parkland of central Saskatchewan. Elsewhere the same environment is called a savanna, but this term tends to be restricted in most people's minds with the warm African example. As I have written previously, higher parts of England were probably savanna like with scattered trees rather than forests. The difference for ancient humans is that parklands can be transited and more easily cleared than forests,many of which were more or less impassable except along rivers and streams.

Weren't all those pines planted for pit props? Not a green purpose at all.

I wonder if it's possible to distinguish between woodland/parkland and forests. My "evidence" remains unexplained.

Aug 21, 2016 at 10:58 AM | ACK

I think it is about determining your distinguishing features. History, geography, folk lore, Law, fashion etc all confuse the definitions.

The New Forest, never had that many trees. A "Park" was developed as a concept by the likes of Capability Brown et al, so that Stately Homes could stand in stylised English Countryside. The Victorians then introduced the concept to the public as urban preservations of rural idyll. Hyde Park came into being as Henry VIII's Royal Deer Hunting playground. The Forest of Bere to the north of Fareham and Portsmouth is largely forgotten even to cartographers.

Huge swathes of impenetrable regimented momoculture conifers, with associated tax incentives have done ecological damage. Very little can survive beneath the canopy. It is an industry, and it is Green, allegedly.

The South Downs is now a National Park. Great, whoopie do! Actually, I don't think anyone has noticed, apart from those employed to tick boxes.

I am a great supporter of the measures taken to preserve buildings, landscapes, the environment etc, but the landscapes do evolve with land use (and the ever changing climate). Who should determine what the ideal landscape should be, and at what temperature?

golfCharlie. The Upper Chalk is easy to identify. It is the only part to have closely spaced courses of flint within it. The Lower Chalk is much more marly having a distinct grey appearance - realistically you will only see it in sea cliffs or just completed road cuts.