W14 - Fagus Sylvatica-Rubus Fruticosus Woodland

Summary

Synonymy

Beechwood association Moss et al. 1910p.p.; Fagetum sylvaticae plateau beech woods Adamson 1922 p.p.; Beech associes, seres 1 & 2 Watt 1924; Chalk plateau beechwoods (b) Watt & Tansley 1930; Beech associes, seres A p.p. & B Watt 1934b; Beech consociation, seres 1 & 2 Watt 1934b; Beech consociation, seres A p.p. & B Watt 1934b; Fagetum rubosum Tansley 1939 p.p.; Beech-Oak-Ash Association, types 3 & 7 McNeill 1961; Beech-oak-holly woods Peterken & Tubbs 1965 p.p.; Cotswold beechwoods Barkham & Norris 1967 p.p.; Beechwood Rackham 1980p.p.; Beech stand type 8D Peterken 1981; Woodland plot types 17 & 20 Bunce 1982.

Constant species

Fagus sylvatica, Ilex aquifolium, Rubus fruticosus agg.

Rare species

Epipactis purpurata.

Physiognomy

The Fagus sylvatica-Rubus fruticosus woodland is a floristically simple community organised on a very large scale. Typically, in mature stands, the canopy is overwhelmingly dominated by Fagus sylvatica which forms a closed, even-topped cover of trees that can attain a magnificent stature. It is in this community that beech makes its best general height growth in Britain with individuals commonly attaining 30 m or more and yielding timber of the top-quality classes (e.g. Watt 1934/?, Brown 1953, McNeill 1961). Where the trees are well spaced, tall and unbranched below, they give the canopy an architectural quality, creating the impression of a vast, spacious vault. Even here, however, growth is frequently not so good as this, varying considerably, even on the most favourable soils, with exposure, and becoming distinctly poorer where edaphic conditions are not so congenial (Watt 1934/?, Brown 1953, 1964). Moreover, stands often have a greater measure of structural complexity related to patterns of natural invasion or treatment or both. In younger, sub-spontaneous woodlands of this kind, the height and density of the beech can be much less uniform, and it is sometimes possible to distinguish older, more richly branched pioneers that led the colonisation of open ground from subsequent generations of straighter, more crowded trees that followed (Watt 1924, 1934/?). Even in more long-established stands, grouped age-classes and physiognomic variation may give some clues to the history of the vegetation, as Peterken & Tubbs (1965) demonstrated in the New Forest (see also Tubbs 1968). Many tracts of the community show signs of treatment. Some have obviously been planted, with regularly-disposed, morphologically-similar and even-aged trees giving the canopy great structural uniformity.