This is the Norwegian Maple that until recently stood on the edge of the meadow. It was removed because it shed too much shadow on the meadow and because it was a non-native species.
Have your say about this decision and other schemes in Gledhow Valley Woods
Save Gledhow Valley Woods 
I think that maintaining and/or re-establishing or creating a woodland meadow will always involve the removal of some trees. The first tree to consider moving would be non-native. The diversity that a meadow brings would outweigh the ecological benefit of a single foreign species tree.
http://treesforlife.org.uk/forest/human-impacts/non-native-species/
One of the major problems threatening the integrity of natural ecosystems around the world today is that of the introduction, either accidentally or deliberately, of non-native species of plants and animals. Such non-indigenous or alien species have, by definition, evolved separately from the ecosystem into which they arrive, so the native plants and animals are vulnerable to the effects of competition, predation or parasitism which the newcomers may bring.
Because of their geographic isolation, islands are particularly vulnerable to invasive non-native species, but in this age of vastly-increased movement of materials around the planet, through the expansion of global trade and international travel, all parts of the world are at risk.In some cases, non-native species fail to become established when they are introduced to an ecosystem, or they can survive and grow, and even reproduce, without becoming a serious problem. However, other introduced species are able to reproduce and proliferate rapidly, due either to taking over an empty ecological niche, a lack of competing native species or an absence of predators in their new environment. It is these invasive alien species which are of most extreme concern in the world today. Because of the lack of natural controls on their expansion, they can take over entire areas or regions, eliminating native species in the process, and completely altering or degrading the quality and diversity of the ecosystems into which they are introduced…..”
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/URGC-7EDJRG
Wildflower meadow habitats
Background
Wildflower meadows offer a diverse, and typically exceptionally attractive, habitat for the pleasure of young and old alike. The twentieth century saw a sharp decrease in the variety of wildflowers in the UK countryside. This was due to changes in agricultural policy and practice, particularly increased field drainage and herbicide use, and the growth of urban sprawl.
Over the past two decades, renewed interest in wildflower habitats has grown with concerns for biodiversity protection and augmentation. Coupled with this concern has been increasing interest in the restoration of old, mismanaged wildflower meadows and the creation of new meadows through, for example, agricultural set-aside programmes and other countryside stewardship schemes. Allowing open habitats such as wildflower meadows in urban settings for the provision of native or naturalised grasses, wildflowers and flowering plants offers several advantages:
Plant diversity attracts insects and other invertebrates (including butterflies, bees, spiders and millipedes), birds and mammals
Flowering species add a changing palate of colour to the urban environment throughout the seasons
Active involvement of the local community in managing the site encourages ownership values to be fostered – activities may range from mowing to the collection of seeds for use at a new location or for sale.
Opportunities for education and recreation abound (ranging from nature studies to art lessons).
Even small plots of wildflower planting can change the feel of a setting, so that the creation of a wildflower meadow as part of an urban greenspace can bring a little piece of countryside into the town….
The tree must have been a relatively recent introduction as it was clearly not mature. Let’s keep up the good work and continue to thoughtfully manage these woods.
LikeLike
I can’t agree with your arguments when a perfectly healthy beautiful tree was felled; presumably someone planted this tree over 20 years ago and suddenly it has to go because someone decides to cultivate a meadow on what is woodland. Some wild flowers were planted on ‘the meadow’ a few years ago and they did not seed themselves because it is the wrong environment for wild flowers. This is woodland not a park There are plenty of other spaces nearby where wild flowers would grow. I couldn’t care less that it was non-native; are we being racist about trees all of a sudden?
LikeLike
It’s merely re-establishing the meadow that has been there for a long time. This is the same type of work that is being carried out on the hill by the lake. What you must bear in mind is that the area is not just a wood, it’s never just been a wood. It was historically a park/garden grounds – managed by Gledhow Hall.
Let’s say that again, for clarity as it’s been missed by many – this is not an historic tree on an historic woodland that was cleared to create a meadow. The area has been open for a very long time. Why let a tree be planted 20 years ago on an old meadow, just because someone like it?
If a tree needs removing to re-establish a meadow then I would say that it’s probably better that it is non-native, as the creatures that are there are not able to benefit from it as much as a native tree.
It’s not tree racism, just good sense.
All trees are not equal and we have to use the lessons of history to try to bring balance to woodland planting. If you read the articles above then you’ll see why it’s actually important to try to ensure woodland is kept varied in species but that the species should be naturalised.
If we allow any old tree in the woods then we may end up with problems as outlined above.
I would take a more pragmatic approach to the felling of this tree and look at the reasoning above. I would consider that the tree is potentially harmful to the woods in that it brings less benefit than other native trees and that the value of a meadow is high. Also the meadow helps to bring some further biodiversity to the woods. I’d say it’s worth the removal of the tree. In fact, and I’m not sure on the policy, but it may be that all non-native trees will be removed in time. I can’t think of any left though?
There’s still some invasive laurel, but I believe that this will be removed in time.
Meadows have ecological importance because their open, sunny areas attract and support flora and fauna that couldn’t thrive in other conditions. Meadows may be naturally occurring or artificially created from cleared shrub or woodland. They often host a multitude of wildlife, providing areas for courtship displays, nesting, gathering food or sometimes sheltering if the vegetation is high enough. Many meadows support a wide array of wild flowers, which makes them of utmost importance to insects like bees, pollination, and hence the entire ecosystem.
LikeLike
if you use these kind of arguments. we should be digging up all the ancestors of beautiful plants brought back by intrepid Victorian explorers and botanists- azaleas, magnolias,rhododendrons (oh the ones in the woods were destroyed weren’t they leaving an unsightly bare patch in their place?).
I don’t understand the logic of these arguments: in one breath the beech wood must go because it is the legacy from a Victorian estate and thus not ‘natural’ woodland and then in the next breath, the meadow must be reclaimed because it is part of an estate.
For fifty years or so these woods have been allowed to regenerate themselves and should be allowed to keep on doing so with sensible thinning of saplings and diseased wood and occasional clearing of scrubby undergrowth which encourages the rats to move up the valley away from the lake.
LikeLike
Perhaps people underestimate the value of a meadow.
It may well be that tree has no more value to the area than the meadow that replaced it.
But, I will leave that to you to research. Lot’s of opinions on this subject…
LikeLike