The New Forest has no shortage of failed beech, given the fact that most of the beech are mature or veteran in age. Typically, the species of Ganoderma can be found to be devouring the remaining stumps and stems, though sometimes further fungi pop up in the most unexpected of places. In this case, looking inside the significantly-hollowed bole yielded a sight of various sporophores of the fungus Phlebia tremellosa (known commonly as ‘jelly skin’).
Because this species is considered to be generally be saprotrophic, the extensive decay (which appears to be caused principally by a white rot) wasn’t created by this fungus and was likely generated instead by Ganoderma australe and / or Ganoderma resinaceum. However, upon windthrow of the bole, or perhaps even before that time, spores of this fungus germinated upon the wood substrate and have since produced fruiting bodies. Such structures are also kept snugly within a consistently warmer and more humid microclimate, which has probably ensured they have endured the frosts that covered the outside world in the prior weeks.
This is only a short post to close-off the weekend, though ideally one that is appreciated – notably, because it showcases the fungus Pseudoinonotus dryadeus in its senescent state and the associated pronounced buttressing employed by the host oak (Quercus robur). I don’t know exactly where this was, though it somewhere along the A371 in one of the villages between the border of Dorset and Somerset through to Cheddar (as if that narrows it down!).
A sublime crown reduction, no doubt!Perhaps this has something to do with it – what came first, the topping or the fruiting bodies? Given the lean on the oak, I admit I don’t actually know. Maybe the pruning wound low down on the right saw a large chunk of the crown removed, enabling for the entrance of fungal propagules and leaving the tree so one-sided?Conks of Pseudoinonotus dryadeus litter the central region between two very significant buttress roots, though we can see how the decay extends beyond the strict basal zone. The fibre buckling discernible in the above picture around the location of the fruiting bodies indicates reaction growth, in response to said buckling under the white rot conditions occurring within.Tearing off a small fragment of one of the old fruiting bodies, we can see how spiders have used the bracket as a nesting site (assuming the white mass is a spider’s abode for eggs, which I have seen similarly in spent conks of Ganoderma spp.).
The extent of attention as to exactly how critical trees are for fish populations is unfortunately not all that significant (in comparison to the study or trees and birds, for example), though this is not necessarily surprising – this is perhaps because fish spend their lives largely under water, and thus their presence is not necessarily recognised to the degree it would be if fish were land-based organisms. However, there is certainly a healthy array of research that has been undertaken into this relationship of trees and fish within the forest ecosystem, as is demonstrated below.
Many undisturbed pools (areas of slow-moving or still water within in rivers and streams) in forests are either created or enhanced by the presence of deadwood (as either driftwood or sunken wood). Such deadwood presence can also raise water levels locally and create a diverse range of aquatic habitats (Hodge & Peterken, 1998) by damming up rivers and streams, and reducing flow velocity (Barbour et al., 2001; Gippel et al., 1996). Large woody debris (including fallen stems and large branches) is particularly critical in this regard, and research has shown that nearly 30% of pools within a stream or river may be created by such woody debris (Mossop & Bradford, 2004).
A gathering of many fallen branches significantly obstructs the flow of this stream through the New Forest, UK. Such obstruction creates niche habitats on both sides of the log jam. Source: Author (2016).
Other research has, whilst not focussing on large woody debris exclusively, identified that as much as 75% of all pools may be created from submerged woody debris (Robison & Beschta, 1990a). Through the creation of these habitats, fish populations can increase, as their range of viable habitat increases – notably for feeding and spawning (Harvey, 1998). However, because even the largest of woody debris will likely not persist for over 50 years, there is a need for a continuous replenishment if streams and rivers are to retain the presence of deadwood-induced pools (Hyatt & Naiman, 2001). When pools are instead created by wood jams, which are made of small (and sometimes also large) branches and stems clustered together, their average viable retention time may only be between 2-3 years (Lisle, 1986). Again, a need for a constant supply of such deadwood is necessary, and this should obviously mean management practices retain trees that can constantly provide for such woody material (Robison & Beschta, 1990b).
Driftwood may be particularly beneficial for fish populations, as not only will its presence control flow velocity, but also protect its banks from erosion, create waterfalls and pools, and thus provide protection for fish spawning as well as increasing habitat diversity (Gurnell et al., 2002). Additionally, driftwood can provide hiding places for species of fish, assisting either in their predatory pursuits or in evading predation (Crook & Robertson, 1999; Werneyer & Kramer, 2005).
Sunken (or partially submerged) deadwood, for those fish species which are insectivorous, can also be highly valuable (Barbour et al., 2001). The wood’s provision of habitat for invertebrates means there is a potential abundance of prey for such insectivorous fish (O’Connor, 1992). A study into the effects of deforestation on wood input levels into woodland stream environments there unsurprisingly showed how reduced amounts of sunken deadwood led to reduced fish diversity and abundance (Wright & Flecker, 2004). In such wood-void streams, wood-eating fish (such as certain species of catfish, whilst not ‘true’ xylivores) may also suffer (German & Bittong, 2009; Lujan et al., 2011), though the loss of diversity in a stream (or river) environment, both because of reduced wood presence and the faster flow associated with such a lack of wood, may also have wider implications for fish species overall (Lancaster et al., 2001; Shields & Smith, 2002; Tsui et al., 2000); particularly when it is understood that a lack of (large) sunken wood is indicative of a degraded stream (Shields et al., 2006). It is also suggested that sunken wood may aid with orientation for fish (Crook & Robertson, 1999).
Some significantly-decayed deadwood from a fallen willow (Salix sp.) will offer aquatic organisms – including fish – the opportunity to forage and seek shelter. Source: Author (2016).
Deadwood that has fallen and become (partially) submerged is also beneficial, as previously ascertained, because it creates pools within a stream or river ecosystem. These pools are areas of a stream or river where the flow is potentially very slow, and in the redwood forests of California downed trunks and branches of trees are considered to be crucial for constituent salmon populations (Barbour et al., 2001). Notably, in areas of steeper ground, this fallen deadwood can create tiers of pools, which actually enable salmon (that travel upstream to breed) to ascend up the river with more ease, as the salmon can ‘leap’ from one pool to another, and swim against a current with reduced velocity (which is critical for the enabling of salmon to conserve vital energy). These pools also reduce bankside erosion and catch up to 85% of sediment (which may amass behind a large branch or stem, though perhaps even more significantly amongst larger wood jams comprised of deadwood of varying sizes), ensuring the rate of sedimentation of the stream or river is slow and sustainable (Berg et al., 1998; Smith et al., 1993; Thevenet et al., 1998). This is important for the salmon, as females nest within the clean gravel beds in the riverbed, and any marked rate of sedimentation would prohibit this (Madej & Ozaki, 2009). These nesting sites may also, in fact, be located within close proximity to large pieces of woody debris (Senter & Pasternack, 2011). The very same deadwood can also support plant life, particularly when a large stem has fallen across a river, and therefore the plants growing atop the log can shade the river and keep the water cooler – this is also critical for the salmon, which prefer cooler waters (Welsh et al., 2001).
This willow has fallen but remains alive, offering a further and somewhat different aspect to the aquatic environment. Source: Author (2016).
Across the United States, in the Appalachian Mountains, research by Jones et al. (1999) has also revealed that the reduction in sedimentation created by fallen woody debris is critical for other species of fish (including the rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss), that spawn in sediment-free riffles within the forest areas of the mountains. Furthermore, their research highlighted that deforestation along riparian zones as little as 1km in length can have massive adverse effects upon the quality of habitat for fish, due to the removal of the source of such critical deadwood. The associated re-growth after the felling, whilst still injecting debris into the water courses, cannot match the size of the debris from older-growth stands, and therefore rainbow trout occur less frequently and at lesser densities (Flebbe & Dolloff, 1995). Deforestation also increases the risk of severe flooding and high flow velocity within the Appalachian Mountains, which can both extensively decimate viable habitat for rainbow trout within the ecosystem. In part, this is because such factors eliminate the fauna that occupy the river bed, which the trout almost exclusively predate upon.
Beyond the realm of deadwood, the beneficial impacts of shading by large trees adjacent to such aquatic environments can also improve the suitability of the habitat for fish (Beschta, 1997; Larson & Larson, 1996). Using the redwood forests as an example once again, it has been recognised that large conifers that reside by a water course cast shade and thus reduce maximum temperatures and the risk of thermal pollution (Madej et al., 2006). Such cooler temperatures, much like how deadwood can support plants that shade and cool waters, protects critical nesting locations for female salmon, reduces the subsequent mortality of juvenile salmon, and improves their growth rate.
The shade this single hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) provides the river beneath, whilst not necessarily significant, will be of measurable benefit. Source: Author (2016).
Beyond California, the cooler waters created through significant (50-80%) canopy shading are equally as important for fish, for similar reasons (Broadmeadow & Nisbet, 2004; Broadmeadow et al., 2011; Swift Jr & Messer, 1971). Such canopy shade may also enable for rivers and streams to support macrophytes (plants growing in or near water), which can act as a food source for some fish species both directly and indirectly. Similarly, they can provide refuge for fish seeking shelter from predators (Pusey & Arthington, 2003). Therefore, retaining riparian trees is mandatory, if viable habitats for fish are to be protected (Young, 2000).
A line of willow and ash (Fraxinus excelsior) dresses the southern side of this river, meaning the water remains continually shaded throughout the day. Source: Author (2016).
Grazing rights on commons must be safeguarded, for these rights are an historical relic of an otherwise aggressively-advancing culture. Indeed, there are a wide range of benefits from grazing, including the ecological, socio-economic and cultural, though the New Forest – and probably many (or all!) other sites where grazing occurs under tree canopies – is also subject to the damage associated with unrestricted grazing.
Certainly, the number of horses within the New Forest, the unrestricted nature of their movement and the lack of safeguarding measures (and probably food) around veteran trees has resulted in some quite substantial (yet currently rather isolated and sporadic) damage to the beech trees. I would expect much of the damage comes during winter, when the horses are searching for food that is not in such great abundance, and luckily (or not!?) I managed to watch a few horses de-barking a fallen limb and the butt of one particular beech tree (whilst another horse was grazing upon the lower branches of holly), in addition to some recent examples of damage on other beech.
On the left, a horse is feastung upon some low-hanging Ilex aquifolium, whilst on the right a plucky horse tries its luck at beech bark.Here, we can also spy another horse stripping a fallen limb of bark, too.Notice more historic grazing wounds beneath the much fresher wound currently being created.Nearby, this particular beech yields far more significant damage. This damage might have even occurred earlier in the morning.The lack of any callus / woundwood growth proves how fresh the damage is.One can also appreciate the style of damage, causing by the teeth of the horses as they strip the bark.Some flies are themselves grazing upon the sugars of the phloem that is now exposed so extensively.In Bolderwood, this beech is accompanied by a sign, which educates members of the public about grazing damage – sort of.“Keep the ponies out!”, they ask. Whether tourists bother reading this I do not know, though perhaps it’s a new addition to the tree, which is actually in an area (Jubilee Wood) fenced-off from horses.Said with such a long face…
I was forunate to be able to spend some time in the New Forest yesterday, having driven back from Somerset after picking up a microscope (more on that, in due time). When last down there, which was during mid-summer, I spent a few hours sojourning around the Bolderwood / Knightwood Oak ornamental drive, with specific focus upon the myriad of mature and veteran beech pollards that dressed the roadside. One beech, even then, alluded to fungal parasitism, given its dire vigour and evident crown retrenchment (perhaps associated with ground compaction, given its close proximity to a car park and the Knightwood Oak). Therefore, I paid a visit to this beech, with the hope of finding some fungi – and I wasn’t disappointed!
I’ll actually be honest and say this beech is testament to the ability for the species to provide for many wood-decay fungal species. I really don’t think I have ever seen a tree more covered in fruiting bodies of many species than this one, and we’ll run through the suspected species below. First, we’ll look at the tree as a whole, however, and from the first image I don’t think there’s any debate over its poor condition. Granted, with the impending demise of a tree, weak fungal parasites and saprotrophs can enter, and this alludes to the cyclical aspect of energy transfer. In time, this beech will be the food for other plants and trees, though for now it’s fungal food.
I wonder how many more years this beech has before its snatched from the throes of life! Probably not many.The arrows relate to the various fungal species found. Working clockwise from the tip of the centre, I spotted what I suspect are Hohenbuehelia atrocoerulia, Chondrostereum purpureum, Mensularia nodulosa (confirmed), Exidia plana and Bjerkandera adusta.Here, behind a limb adorned brilliantly with one of the ex-Inonotus species, sit some fresh oysters (Hohenbuehelia atrocoerulea). Evidently, they are free from frost damage, suggesting they are probably only a few days old.There’s also a younger set emerging just behind this cluster in the foreground!Looking down the main stem, here we can observe how Chondrostereum purpureum and Mensularia nodulosa are inter-mingling. On the whole, it appears the Chondrostereum is more limited in its amassed substrate, if the presence of fruiting bodies are anything to go by – the ex-Inonotus species is abundant on the trunk and further up into some of the limbs.In this image we can identify how the two species really do run right up to their respective thresholds.For good measure, these are older sporophores of Chondrostereum purpureum. In their juvenile days, they’d have been far more attractive.Further round the trunk, we enter the sole territory of the Mensularia nodulosa.Angling upwards, the slotted nature of the tube layers becomes very evident.Down on one of the buttresses, this witches’ butter (Exidia plana) gets comfy amongst mosses. Note that it’s more likely to be this species of Exidia, as Exidia glandulosa is more often found on oak. To discern between the two however, you’d need to inspect some spores under the microscope.Looking more closely one can appreciate (I guess…?) why it’s called witches’ butter.And up on another limb, we have what is probably Bjerkandera adusta.It seems to be ejoying the decay column from the pruning wound and general dysfunction.There’s also some gilled sporophores in this one, which could potentially be Panellus stipticus, though they were too sparse and too small to see properly.
Yesterday, as part of our monthly aim of visiting sites across the south east of England, a half-dozen strong group of arboriculturalists made the journey to London’s Greenwich Park – myself included. Indeed, as much of the park consists of deciduous specimens (principally, avenues of Castanea sativa and Aesculus hippocastanum), the park was rather bare in the foliage sense, though such barren canopies did allow us to appreciate the true magnitude of – most notably – some of the veteran sweet chestnuts. The frost-clad ground and crystalline sky provided a similar beauty, and thus we shall begin with one of the most iconic vistas from Greenwich Park – the city skyline.
As we stood adjacent to the observatory, we could admire – amongst the furor of tourists and scout groups – the sightly perverse beauty of a city. I say perverse, as such artificial and polluted landscapes don’t tend to suit those who don’t consider themselves urbanites, which includes myself.
Of course, we didn’t go there for the view, so let’s get into the main bulk of this account – trees and fungi. There’s no real order to how the below series of images rank, so don’t consider this post a chronological reflection of our trip!
Perhaps the best place in which to start the core section of this post are the huge sweet chestnuts, though we must begin on a rather sombre note. With a species of Phytophthora suspected on site and some of the older individuals exhibiting stunted and chlorotic leaf growth, there is a valid concern for the future of these veterans which is – without doubt – highly concerning. During the winter months, fully appreciating this contemporary issue is difficult, though we did spot some foliage on the floor that was certainly smaller in size than would be typically expected. Alas, this situation should not impact adversely on our admiration of these trees, and should in fact raise attention and draw intrigue to those within the industry and beyond, with an eye to ensuring we continue to care for the current and future populations of veterans. Therefore, promoting the Ancient Tree Forum and their most recent publication on ancient and veteran tree management is critical. And now, for some fine shots of various veterans!
This veteran sweet chestnut was the first one to greet us as we entered the park from the southern end. Not a bad induction!As the city blocks paint the skyline to the right, we get a brilliant juxtaposition between the historic and the contemporary. In such a dynamic and ever-changing landscape such as London, this veteran sweet chestnut acts as a vestige of the old.From another angle, the same sweet chestnut as above’s form can be more greatly appreciated. The helical patterns of the wood fibres and bark are as if they have been wound like rope.This veteran has seen better days, though still stands proudly by the cafeteria. The ground beneath is woefully compacted, which must be having an impact upn the tree’s ability to function as a living being. Unlike the two shown above, it also doesn’t have a layer of mulch applied around its rooting environment.
Some of the veteran sweet chestnut we came across were also home to two annual common wood-decay fungi – Fistulina hepatica and Laetiporus sulphureus. Without doubt, the state of the fruiting bodies was not good, though when ravaged by time, wind, rain, frost and sun, to still even have a form is respectable! Certainly, a summer visit would have yielded a much greater haul of these two fungi on the sweet chestnuts, so a summer visit is probably on the cards.
One of Greenwich Park’s many veteran sweet chestnuts with an added extra – a small and rather weathered……you can see it……Fistulina hepatica! Picked off by parasitism before it reached a respectable stature, it still nonetheless produced a hymenium and thus likely produced spore.A second sweet chestnut, this time slightly smaller, but again with Fistulina hepatica.The state of it is, however, diabolical!A smaller and thus younger sweet chestnut, in this instance.It sports a fungal fruiting body, nonetheless!A chicken of the woods, which is beaten and bruised.Another smaller sweet chestnut, and another Laetiporus sulphureus.Note how it emerges from behind a bark-covered area.Again this sporophore is long beyond its best, though retains a little more dignity in the face of its impending crumble.
Away from the sweet chestnut, there was a variety of other large trees. Below, I share the ones that were home to fungi, through the identification of fruiting bodies. Absolutely, all trees on site are host to many species of fungi, though fruiting is not necessary in many instances, and it certainly costs the fungus energy to create and sustain. To begin, we’ll take a look at the ever-accomodating mature Robinia pseudoacacia in the park, which didn’t disappoint. In all, the population supported three species of wood-decay polypore, as we will see in the below images.
A very mature false acacia, with a very mature Laetiporus sulphureus fan on the main stem.Well, sort of a fan – the remains of!I imagine someone yanked this off, as it looks like a rather clean break.Very close by, a second false acacia cradles another Laetiporus sulphureus.Here, we can see how it’s at the base of the main stem, in place of higher up the structure.This second one is far worse for wear!A double-stemmed Robinia pseudoacacia, which was once at least triple-stemmed.At the base, a senescent Perenniporia fraxinea and a cluster of broken active sporophores can be seen.For good measure,here’s a better look at the entire bunch.It’s a little disappointing that the fruiting bodies have been damaged, though that doesn’t stop them being Perenniporia fraxinea!And a second example of Perenniporia fraxinea on this false acacia, too.Right at the base, to the left.This one appears slightly different to how it’d usually look (it’s not photogenic!).Regardless, a showing of the trama reveals it as Perenniporia fraxinea.It looks like the park managers are aware of the decay on this Robinia, as it has already been pruned!If you look between the buttresses and into the basal cavity, you can spot a single Ganoderma australe. More were on the other side of the tree, though were old and worn.With the sun behind the camera, this southern bracket looks rather pretty.
Steering attention away from false acacias, I now turn towards a focus on the brown-rotting polypore Rigidoporus ulmarius. With both horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) on the site, the chances are that there would have been a few examples of this fungus. Indeed, there were, as we will observe.
This first example, on horse chestnut, is an interesting one.It’s the return of the cavity-dwelling Rigidoporus!Away from the wrath of the elements, this sporophore doesn’t have the algal green stain atop and bathes in its own substrate.A cutting identifies this specimen as Rigidoporus ulmarius, with the cinnamon tube layer and brilliantly white flesh.The second horse chestnut sits in line for the toilets, patiently waiting for soneone to give it the 20p needed to get beyond the toll gate.If you want, you can even sit down to inspect this tree!This might well be this sporophore’s first season. I wonder how many more years it will see before it gets knocked-off or is aborted.Half way up this steep hill, a beech stands seemingly without significant issue.Oh, wait – here’s the issue!Is that a shade of green?From this shot, it looks most probably like Rigidoporus ulmarius. If so, we have two examples in one site of its cavity-dwelling abilities!
Greenwich Park also has a good number of large plane trees (Platanus x hispanica). The most abundant fungus on these trees was massaria (Splanchnonema platani), and there probably wasn’t a plane in the park that didn’t show at least some signs of its presence. However, it was the large plane with Inonotus hispidus that gained much of my eager attention, given I am not often around mature planes with extensive fungal decay.
A rather lofty plane tree.As the crown breaks, we can spot a single Inonotus hispidus sporophore.Whether there is an old wound at or around this site is hard to say, though for this fungus to be able to colonise one would expect so.Perhaps an old branch stub above the fruiting body?
To round this post off, which has admittedly taken a long time to write, I’ll share some lovely images of a not-so-lovely bird – the parakeet (Psittacula krameri). Plaguing many of London’s parks and beyond, these things produce an utter cacophony and are certainly invasive, though one must admit that they are incredibly photogenic. Below, I share a few examples of where the parakeets were using cavities for shelter.
A horse chestnut monolith, seemingly vacant.Wrong! Enter the parakeet(s).This one stands proudly atop a pruning cut.Along a plane tree branch, this parakeet appears to be guarding its abode.“Oi m8, w0t u lookin’ @???”
“The tree is damaging my brick wall!“, they exclaim. “Fell the tree!“, they demand. Frankly, the word “no” would be sufficient, in at least a good portion of cases. After all, there’s an easy engineering solution that not only balances the need for a crack-free wall and the presence of a tree, but also signals ingenuity and a reasoned approach to situation management – the bridging of said wall around the butt of the tree and its immediatly-adjacent root plate. The issue is addressed in various publications, including Tree Roots in the Built Environment, and it is a message that needs to be communicated to homeowners and tree owners alike. More of the below, please!
A fairly large sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) within touching distance of a low brick wall and a pathway. A recipe for disaster, surely? No! The tree can easily be retained via a simple feat of engineering, as we can see even from afar.Not only does the remaining wall have a much lower chance of being directly damaged by the secondary thickening of the sycamore roots, but it also saves on bricks!We can see how the roots sit snugly beneath the brick wall, and the tree is making itself even more cosy by girdling itself………… (?).
The weather has been quite superb over the past few days, and I utilised my lunch break today to get out and explore a country park I visit probably once every month or two. Unfortunately, it’s pretty massive, so covering the entire place takes far longer than a single hour, though that doesn’t dissuade as there are still fungi to find – and fungi I did find.
The title of this post, I’ll admit, is a little devious. Yes, it’s winter, and yes, these are fungi, though some are perennial polypores that essentialy cheat the system a little. Worry not, however, for there are a few examples of annual fungi thrown in for good measure. Regardless, the mix found today was pretty decent, and a few of those species shown below aren’t ones I come across very often.
We’ll begin with Perenniporia fraxinea, which I found on two different ash within very close proximity to one another. The second example is easily the best, as some of the brackets were absolute monsters (though it was the smaller ones that drew my attention to them). Sadly, due to the strong sun and the sheer mass of bramble and bracken surrounding the ash, getting good photos was incredibly tough, though the ones beneath are suitable enough to offer a sound appreciation of their size. If you look hard enough, you’ll undoubtedly find similar-sized examples, as they aren’t too difficult to track down if you know where there are plenty of large and mature ash. The first example is still useful, however – it demonstrates how variable the morpohology of the species can be.
Interestingly, the first example of the above Perenniporia fraxinea yielded another treat – Coriolopsis gallica, atop. From what I have seen of this fungus, it tends to favour ash (Fraxinus excelsior), though as it isn’t one I see that often it might simply be a bias from my observations – ash are, around here, abundant, and there is no shortage of wind-damaged ash and fallen limbs adorned with fungi. Relatively nearby, another ash, in the form of a fallen limb, supported a separate colony (or colonies) of this species, and both examples are thus shown below.
Essentially adjacent to the second example of Coriolopsis gallica stood a large hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), which had a longitudinal section of cambial dieback tracking its main stem from the death of the branch above. Despite not being at all uncommon, along this area of dieback were multiple sporophores of the fungus Ganoderma australe.
And finally, right at the top of another ash (which also was dressed with Inonotus hispidus) sat what appeared to be Pleurotus ostreatus – albeit, very mature. Exhausting my camera’s zoom lens, the below photos were captured. Given the position, size and colour of the fruiting bodies, I doubt it could be anything else.
Tell a lie, there’s actually one more series of shots to show. This time, we have an oak (Quercus robur) that has fallen and since reiterated to form a new crown, courtesy of phototropism. At the cusp of the transition between functional and dysfunctional wood stood this rather tiny little sporophore, blue in colour. From my experience and knowledge, I would suggest that this is Postia subcaesia, which is a species of the genus Postia that is routinely found on deciduous trees – most species are largely found on gymnosperms, however.
State forestry is a political and ecological phenomenon that has occurred across all continents and almost all countries, though for all the history it should have trying to pin-point fine sources of information can be difficult. Therefore, in order to help any of you who are interested in this topic track down the information you need readily, I list below a series of books that delve intricately into the matter that I personally own copies of. Indeed, other books do exist, though I cannot attest to their content and thus won’t list them.
With reference to the links provided, I have tried to link to the original publisher where the book still seems to be widely aailable. However, for books that are seemingly out of print, I have linked to third-party seller sites, with other publishers and AbeBooks being the principal links, and followed by Amazon. Please be aware, however, that the links provided do not send you to the site selling the books for the lowest value.
See part III of this series on state forestry in France here.
This phenomenon of the environmental and social misunderstandings of the peasantry and their forests can be further observed in Indonesia, and specifically upon the island of Java. This is because Indonesian state forestry practices began in Java with the State Forestry Corporation of Java in the 1870s, initiated by the Dutch colonial government, and emanated outward from the island into Indonesia more broadly.
The natural forests of Java have historically been a mix of a variety of tree species, including Altingia excelsa, Elaeocarpus macrocerus, Pinus merkusii, Tectona grandis, and Toona sureni. These forests have been the home of many millions of villagers, with their livelihoods being critically dependant upon the longevity and thus careful management of the forests and surrounding areas. Activities undertaken were rather similar to those undertaken in Uttarakhand, and in relation to construction teak (Tectona grandis) was the most favoured tree. Owned – pre-colonially – by Javanese kings and other elite individuals, villagers were permitted to use these forests under their decree, and often would there be a fair but entirely manageable (financial and free-labour) levy imposed on the villagers to maintain the functioning of the Javanese domains. However, because of the nature of forest communities, which were generally-speaking somewhat isolated from the king or other sovereign, villagers had a certain amount of freedom to ignore particular rules and regulations associated with their contract with the forest owner, though this of course varied with the extent of isolation – not that there were many limitations on how villagers could utilise the forest anyway, with only sparing and well-guarded royal forests and sacred groves being protected.
As far back at 1596, the Dutch, who would go on to rule Java from 1796, placed as important value on Javanese timber – notably teak. Javanese villagers, initially employed by the king or regional sultan under contract from the Dutch, though after 1743 generally directly employed by the Dutch, would harvest this timber, and sell it for purposes including ship building. Similar trade relations were also established with the Chinese. Subsequently, an informal ‘state’ forestry practice had actually begun centuries prior to the creation of the true state forestry department in 1865 (and the associated forest laws written between 1860-1934). However, the pre-colonial rule of Java was, as has been detailed, a relatively passive one, with villagers having a good degree of autonomy over their lives and forests. It was only when state forestry came into being, primarily for the cultivation of teak, that this began to drastically change, as the Dutch government sought to control and limit the relationship villagers had with their forests for the purposes of financial profit.
Notably, the tactics employed by the Dutch went about to usurp the villager and their relationship with the forest. In this sense, villagers had very little influence into the creation of teak plantations and felling operations, despite such operations having a sometimes quite drastic impact upon their livelihoods. One notable impact upon villagers, beyond the loss of forest cover, was their rapidly declining population of buffalo, for the buffalo were drafted by the Dutch to transport felled timber from the site of felling to the river or coast. Some of the largest teak trees, for example, required 80 buffalo to transport, and en route it was not uncommon for 10 of these buffalo to die. Because buffalo were used by villagers for cultivating land for agriculture, their population reduction had very real consequences for local food production.
An image, of unknown date, depicting two Indonesian workers felling a tree for its timber. Source: FAO.
By the same token, the environmental destruction associated with cleared forest areas, or even sparsely-forested areas after select trees were felled, had adverse impacts upon the lives of the villagers, and this occurred both before and after the onset of state forestry. The forest laws passed, notably those from 1860-1875, also saw large portions of land come under state ownership, which directly opposed cultural norms associated with villagers, in essence, owning the land surrounding their villages. These now state-owned areas were also policed, with quite harsh punishments for seemingly meagre ‘crimes’, which only became crimes – having once been customary villager rights – after the state itself detailed them as so under forest law. For instance, 45,000 people were arrested in 1905 for forest crimes, with most being for stealing wood – wood that was some decades earlier free to take.
Such changing of land ownership also limited the ability for villagers to farm in the surrounding landscape (by 1940, 3,057,200 hectares of land were state-owned), as did it hinder their ability to migrate to flee oppression and other undesirable circumstances, including excessive population growth and poor financial standing. However, with regards to farming, recently felled areas could be temporarily farmed (known as tumpang sari) by villagers with the permission of the state, for a period of between 1-3 years on average – the palette of crops was however limited to ones that would not have adverse impacts upon the trees regenerating within the area (usually teak or pine), either naturally or far more routinely artificially (from planted seed). Of course, this did mean that some villagers had to constantly follow the path of the forestry operations, in order to sustain their way of life; as did it sometimes require villagers to adhere to the demand of corrupt forest officials, who oversaw the allocation of tumpang sari land. Ultimately, the increasing levels of bureaucracy were alien to villagers, who were unaccustomed to such a myriad of regulations surrounding the use of forests.
A photo of a forester in central Java, taken between 1900-1940. Source: Wikimedia.
Such a situation was unfortunately only further exacerbated in World War II, when the Japanese took control of Java in 1942-1945 (Peluso, 1992). In this period state forestry operations, spearheaded by the Japanese Forest Service of Java, doubled in timber output compared to under the Dutch, and a ‘scorched earth’ policy by Dutch foresters and ransacking by Javanese villagers led to the forests deteriorating in quality quite massively in only three years – the effects are still observable today, in the landscape. Then, following Indonesian independence in 1949 (after four years of sometimes violent revolution), the new state only served to continue with state forestry operations (under the banner of the State Forestry Corporation), all whilst using the old Dutch laws (mostly almost verbatim – notably forest boundaries) and some of their foresters, albeit with recalibrated intentions that ‘better’ (a potentially malleable term, in this situation) served the nation’s populace.
In light of this, protest was certainly common from the late 1800s onward, and specifically from 1942-1966. The form a given protest took would however vary, with particular protests being non-violent (migration and ignoring the forest laws) and others certainly more violent (acts of crime, arson, and – more broadly – rebellion). Within the umbrella of protest, there are certain movements that deserve notable attention, however. One pertinent example is what was known as the Samin Movement, which was a social movement borne in 1890 but gained most notable momentum by 1907 when over 3,000 village families had adopted the ethos of the movement. This form of protest, founded by the peasant Surontiko Samin, was non-violent in approach and involved protesters purposely ignoring the instruction of state forest officials, for the purpose of safeguarding traditional customs of the Javanese villagers. However, because of the state’s pursuance of dissenting villagers, certain villager leaders did not support the movement, for fear of retribution if they did indeed show support. Therefore, some Saminists were exiled from their villagers, or excluded from communal practices.
A large teak (Tectona grandis) that the Samin Movement encouraged native Javans to utilise for their own needs, in place of supporting the Dutch forestry efforts. Source: Wikimedia.
Some decades later, during the second half of the 1940s (after the demise of the Japanese colonial government and at the inception of revolution, which itself ended in 1949), protests began to significantly rise in frequency and became far more organised, due to the adoption of a stance on forest politics by many political organisations. For example, in 1948, the Indonesian Communist Party and People’s Democratic Front attacked buildings and structures owned by the Forest Service, after it failed to amend forest policy in a manner that would more extensively benefit local people. These attacks caused rather extensive damage, and some main routes to transport timber were rendered impassable after bridges were destroyed. Two years prior, approximately 220,000 hectares of state-owned forest in Java was damaged (or destroyed) by protesting groups and individuals, and a further 110,000 hectares occupied by villagers and taken over or stripped for timber and firewood.
Alongside such protests, the Indonesian Forest Workers’ Union and Indonesian Peasants’ Front would support the villagers, in hope of returning Java’s forests to the people. In the few years following 1962, the Indonesian Forest Workers’ Union was most effective is achieving this aim of returning the state-owned forests to villagers; perhaps because nearly 25% (or 5,654,974 individuals) of the adult Indonesian peasantry were members. Granted, organisations did exist that were distinctly anti-communist, such as the Islamic Workers’ Union, who in fact battled with the Indonesian Communist Party over issues relating to state forestry. In the years immediately after 1964, the Islamic Workers’ Union was known to lead communist supporters into the forests of Java, shoot them, and then bury them in mass graves within the forest.
Following on from law changes in 1967, such protests generally begun to adopt a more clandestine approach. Because of the increasing militarisation of the forest service, notably with regards to its four different police forces, villagers were more fearful of reprisal if caught disobeying forest law. Stands comprised largely – or exclusively – of teak were most ferociously guarded. Granted, villagers did sometimes attack the armed police forces, and notably when the police forces were caught undertaking clandestine operations themselves, and also burned the state-owned forests of teak and pine (principally Pinus merkusii). At this time, the forest service also became more centralised, which further alienated a forest service from the villagers that, despite its now Indonesian-run state, reflected distinctly its Dutch ancestral roots, and diametrically opposed the traditional Javanese agrarian lifestyle. As a consequence of villager exclusion, the quality of the Javanese forests progressively declined over the decades because villagers had to resort to ‘theft’ to obtain what they could once gain on a subsistence basis (or to support black market demands for teak, in order to supplement the limited wages they would gain by working for the State Forestry Corporation on an ad hoc basis), which has contributed to sometimes quite severe environmental degradation. Such issues are still pertinent today.
Honna, J. (2010) The legacy of the New Order military in local politics: West, Central and East Java. In Aspinall, E. & Fealy, G. (eds.) Soeharto’s New Order and its Legacy. Australia: The Australian National University.
Arboriculture 