GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT CHOICES FOR THE COMMON
Control of the management of the grassland on the Common to achieve outcomes conducive to the objectives in the management plan has probably been our most persistent problem.
Why: The Common Management Plan states: “The grassland community is typical of wet, acid, "unimproved" grassland. Conservation policy should aim to keep it so. Also the grassland area is a low nutrient habitat, i.e. “unimproved” and it is managed to be kept so by cutting and removing the material.
The Management Plan prioritizes some locally valuable and rare plant species such as the Common Spotted orchid (Dactylochiza fuchsii) and the Devils-bit scabious (Succisa pratensis). However, over the years we have also come to appreciate the conservation of the butterfly species. We have recorded 18 species of which 6 rely on grasses for some part of their lifecycle and 6 more on other plant species found in the grassland. Butterflies are only the most familiar and appealing of the myriad species of insects which would also be valuably conserved in the grassland if appropriately managed. Grassland ant heaps are beneficial - especially to Green woodpeckers for whom they provide much of their diet. Having the cattle meant that their heaps were not scalped off by machinery. Later in the year some plants e.g. thistles provide nectar for butterflies and other insects and seeds for birds such as Goldfinches.
You might ask why cut at all then? To keep down the invasive non grassland plants such as brambles and tree seedlings and to mimic, albeit unsubtly, the grazing which has been the driver for the diversity of grassland plants. So we have more than one objective in the management of the grassland.
How: deciding how to manage the grassland for the full range of biodiversity involves two options: a cutting regime considerate of the lifecycles of the biodiversity or a cutting regime which rotates the cutting of different areas.
Our best time was when we had the Dexter cattle. Meadow biodiversity evolved by grazing by different species of animals (rabbits too), so having a small herd of cattle on the Common seems ideal.
Here is a resume of the benefits of grazing animals sent to me by Rachel Sanderson of the Chilterns Conservation Board:
- The way cattle eat results in shorter grass of different heights;
- Grazing animals select some patches in preference to others, varying the sward height. They eat slowly so invertebrates can move out of the way. A machine slaughters anything in its path;
- Heavier grazing animals trample vegetation leaving a greater diversity in structure and heat traps etc for invertebrates and poach the soil creating bare ground which diversifies the sward by allowing seeds space to germinate and habitat for invertebrates that require bare ground for nesting.
When: when matters if you have rare flora or fauna that need to complete reproduction before the habitat changes.
I began to wonder if the Dexter cattle would allow us to ignore the problems of the How and the When and I am advised that it does. So we must hope that we get them back again or we will have to go back to using machinery which is less considerate of wildlife conservation.
Larger 'compartments' for grazing are easier for the grazier. At Coleshill Common, the 'where' should therefore be as much of the Common as possible. Cattle were originally woodland animals, they need shade and woody material in their diet so on the Common we can include the woodland areas which would also benefit from natural grazing.
Then there is the mysterious ecological value of the cowpats…….!
Graham Thorne