Talk:Coppicing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Forestry (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Title[edit]

Can anyone change the header to Coppicing as I am not sure how to do it?

Many thanks, Dieter

Hi Deiter- I've already created a redirct page from Coppicing to Coppice quercus robur

I think he's right that the "procedure" title is much better than the "noun" title; the latter enourages dictionary-like entries rather than full encyclopedia articles. --LDC
fine by me quercus robur
Thanks for the help
Dieter

Woodland management?[edit]

Hi, Quercusrobur, Your "Pruning Fruit Trees" is excellent. It puts the pruning as regards fruit trees very much into perspective. The thing is, though, is "pollarding" and "coppicing" not more in the realm of Woodland Management?

Has the correct pruning of fruit trees not more bearing on the ultimate yield of fruit rather than the yield of timber on the one hand, and "rods" for twining on the other as in the case of oak, ash, willow? If you want to redirect both, "Coppicing" and "Pollarding" into the "Pruning" article that would be fine by me, but they should be kept as a separate paragraph, I think. What do you think?

Diet

Hi Diet- I think that coppicing, ollarding & pruning should definately be kept as 3 seperate entries, but cross linked- however the stuff about apical dominanace is important to all three articles (pruning copicing & polarding is all about controling apical dominance in dfferent ways in order to obtain diffeent results), so maybe that para could be copied and pasted, with some minor tweaking, into each of the articles- means a little duplication, but any person looking up just one of those areas will then get the 'theoretical' information as well as the practical bits... quercus robur
Hi, Quercus Robur,
Hell, I seem to have lost the article on Pollard/Pollarding trying to Redirect into the "Pollarding". I shall rewrite it when I have a bit more time in an hour or so. Sorry [Quercus robur..?]
All old versions of articles are kept. Click the "history link", and you can resotre one. I'll write this up on the FAQ later. In the meantime, i've taken the last good version of pollard & put it on the pollarding page -- Tarquin 09:49 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)
Hi, Tarquin
Many thanks. will peruse FAQ, Dieter
Hi,Quercusrobur,
Looks great, drawings and integration of article
Many thanks
Diet

Too many images?[edit]

The new images are great - but I'm worried that there are now more images on this page than are necessary. Do we really need them all? Do they all add something? Your views sought. Naturenet | Talk 19:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a consensus of other editors may determine that. I think, to see an old coppice stool after many years though might just give an idea what they really look like after time has elapsed. Perhaps a gallery format might do the trick? Or should we add more text to even things out? Dieter Simon 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, if others think there too many images, I will remove one of the two photos of the same Banstead stool. Dieter Simon 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reflowed how the images are displayed. I hope you like it. 71.199.123.24 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Aspen[edit]

Is clearcutting an aspen stand coppicing? If it qualifies it must be one of the most commonly coppiced forests, at least in the united states. 128.101.70.98 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly it could be called that, are the aspens felled, allowed to regrow, and then felled again? If so it's a kind of coppicing. But if it is not called that locally it's probably not right to describe it so normally. Naturenet | Talk 08:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Aspen is different from the coppiced trees described here because all of the current examples shoot from stools, and aspen root sucker shoots.128.101.70.96 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
ithink thje pictures are great. pictures are important there are not too many pictures  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.19.12 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 

Blog link[edit]

I'd like to add a link to our blog, which is all about the coppice woodland we are managing near Rye, East Sussex, UK, but every time I add it it gets removed automatically because it has "blogspot" in the link name. Who can approve it to be added, or should it not be added? The address is http://peplers.blogspot.com/

Cheers, Mike—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.246.74 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike – it's a very interesting page, and you are clearly doing great stuff (if only more Wealden woods were managed so well!). However, not sure it's really encyclopaedic. It doesn't support facts on the page, nor does it provide additional detail, and it's liable to change by the day. I'd say it's not really an appropriate link, but look at Wikipedia:Spam and see what you think. --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point. Thanks for the positive comments! Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.207.243 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Globalise tag[edit]

I do not add this tag, but I accept that the article is very anglocentric. Personally, I would be reluctant to have this article marred by a lot of material on similar practises in other counties being added to it. There are several possible solutions to this: (1) to start a separate article on coppicing (worldwide) and rename this as "Coppicing in England and Wales". (2) to provide a sharp division in this article so that the English material remains as a disticnt section, with the practices elsewhere being added.

  • England was a country where woodland was relatively scarce; what there was may thus have ben more intensively managed than in other countries.
  • Coppicing is most suitable for deciduous trees in temperate countries. I suspect the pine woodlands of Sweden and Russia for example were clear felled and replanted in order to take a crop of wood to fuel the iron industry.

Comments please. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add it either, but I too agree it's anglocentric (not least because of my own past contributions).
However, I don't agree that material from elsewhere would mar the page – I think it would enhance it. I can see no reason why the article should not cover coppicing worldwide. If it ever did get too long, that would be the time to break out local varieties into separate articles.
Pine, spruce and fir woodlands would indeed have been felled (though not necessarily clear-felled) and replanted, because these conifers do not have epicormic growth, so cutting anywhere below the lowest leafy shoot kills them.
I don't think it's right that woodland being relatively scarce is the reason for coppicing being so widely practised in England (or more accurately Britain). The Weald was heavily coppiced, but is also very heavily wooded in many parts. I think it was more because of the relatively high population (though very much less than now), and the relatively high level of industrial activity – such as iron making in the Weald. What I don't know is how widespread coppicing is (or was) elsewhere in the world. One point is that it can only really be done in an enclosed landscape, because unenclosed livestock (or wild herbivores) would browse the regrowth. I've seen coppicing done widely in France, but not for example in Greece (which is largely unenclosed) – I have however seen plenty of grazed pollard woodland in Greece, and also in parts of Spain. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I was being too strong in my comments. My object was partly to point out that there were other ways ahead. We had that problem over toll roads, where all and sundry added their bit to an article that at one point dealt with British turnpike trusts in some detail. The answer there was to fork of the British turnpike trusts, so that it is a subarticle of toll roads in United Kingsom, which is in turn a subarticle of Toll roads.
Some articles end off with a snippet on a multitude of countries, and little of value on any. Some parts of England have a good deal of woodland; these are often the area where the charcoal iron industry operated the longest. Yes it would be good to see somthing on practice in France, Germany, Italy and USA, where woods really are coppiced. On the other hand, too much in this article on quite different practices elsewhere would be a bad thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, why don't we see how it goes? If the page gets swamped as you fear, we'll break out where necessary. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to seeing some non-British contributions... Richard New Forest (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been six years, and no contributions about coppicing outside the UK. I'm gonna remove that tag and maybe add an intro sentence to acknowledge the English provenance of the artile. I think Peterkingiron has a point, but if it turns out that some more international info comes along, we can always take the course of action discussed above. Naturenet | Talk 19:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

dead link[edit]

Greetings the link to BCTV is no longer active (Coppicing how-to at the BTCV). Perhaps another suitable link could be added instead. Cheers, Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.229.30 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Coppice with Standards[edit]

I am studying a Masters course in forestry. AND it is made really clear that there are 2 DIFFERENT Silvicutural techniques: COPPICING and COPPICING WITH STANDARDS - yet as of now the second redirects here and there is no explanation of coppicing with standards. Can a seperate article be made to explain these just as other techniques have their own articles? I do not want to get into an edit war over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.67.7 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. With access to academic forestry sources you sound like just the person to improve this article. Is coppicing with standards so different that it can not be covered in the same article?--Charles (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Coppicing with carbon absorption purposes[edit]

Lately there had been several articles in news and online about coppicing with eye toward carbon absorption. Would have to find these articules to clarify the new purpose of coppicing. Samuelsenwd (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)