There’s something stirring on the peaks of Scotland’s Munros. Recent research by the University of Stirling has reported trees growing at record-breaking heights, such as a rowan standing tall at 1,150m (3,773ft) near the top of Sgurr nan Ceathreamhnan, a Munro in West Affric. This news is hints at the potential restoration of hilltop woodlands lost over thousands of years.
PhD researcher Sarah Watts, from Stirling’s Faculty of Natural Sciences, is at the forefront of this work.
“I have now bagged more than 200 Munros”,
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65903065
she reveals, her main concern being to record the distribution and altitudes of trees and other mountain plants.
“It was fascinating to find trees growing at the absolute limit of environmental tolerance for these species. Some were 200m above previously known altitudes.”
While this botanical breakthrough is worthy of celebration, it upends much of these researchers’ ideas about what shapes and influences these high-altitude ecosystems.
The prevailing narrative places blame on overgrazing by livestock and deer for the degradation of high-altitude habitats. As Ms. Watts states, these habitats across the Scottish Highlands have largely been lost due to overgrazing. But how accurately does this perspective reflect the full complexity of the situation? While overgrazing certainly impacts regrowth, it doesn’t wholly explain the vast ecological changes witnessed over the millennia.
Five thousand years ago, these mountainsides bore witness to a significant die-off of trees, well before modern grazing practices were implemented. Consequently, it’s clear that overgrazing cannot be the sole or even primary cause of the initial deforestation.
We can infer that their growth is likely influenced by changes in environmental conditions, such as CO2 enrichment.
Research shows that increased CO2 levels can boost tree growth, especially at high altitudes where the air is thinner. The rowan and sitka spruce’s newfound success at these heights is likely a testament to these conditions.
There is no mention of warmer temperatures raising the tree line for these species, which would likely feature prominently if any warming had been detected.
It appears overgrazing is a challenge mainly for regrowth and the natural recovery of these habitats, rather than the initial cause of tree loss. Indeed, addressing overgrazing is critical to protect the nascent revival of these woodlands, but it is just one piece of the ecological puzzle.
The pioneering tree species now making a home at these heights, such as the rowan and the sitka spruce, provide a window into understanding the potential factors that could have prompted the initial die-off. As these species defy previously known limits, thriving in what Ms. Watts describes as:
“the absolute limit of environmental tolerance for these species”
The unprecedented discovery of these high-altitude trees presents an opportunity to explore the resilience and adaptability of these species, and increase our understanding of the historical forces that shaped these landscapes.
Scottish trees growing up up up while it’s only UK unreliables battery maker goes under-
MARKET REPORT: Battery cell maker AMTE falls as it fights for survival (msn.com)
Hoots mon! Get those coal fired Chinese lithium batteries into you to save the Jock and the Beanstalk tale for the kiddies.
Volt went under a year or two ago, now AMTE. The problem is that these companies gambled on making lithium batteries at a low level, then having a ‘breakthrough in battery technology’ happen that would boost the market. It never happened, was never likely to happen and so they failed.
But…but…they had Innovate UK experts and Gummint bucks picking winners for all those green jobs so what could possibly go wrong?
AMTE Power’s Project Quantum Signals New Era of British Battery Manufacturing – AMTE Power
Hmmmm…..now let me think with all that greening?
Factbox-European companies cut jobs as economy sputters (msn.com)
…. and nothing is more certain than the uncertainty he describes!
here we are again, The Magic Molecule, Junk Science, Confirmation Bias and LowToZeroEducation consign us all to a very cold place. aka Hell
The Sheep Did It. (Strictly, the lack of sheep)
Where’s RGB of Duke these days, he despised those sorts of critters, goats esp.
Firstly (1) How exactly do Modern Grazing Practices differ from grazing practices of 5,000 years ago?
You turf the things out into a field and let them get on with it. When they’re fat and juicy you eat them.
What were the Celts, Picts and RedHairedMadmen doing any different – and especially, what were they eating up there – hardly a diet of Soya, Avocado and Goji Berries.
Firstly (2) OK this requires a modicum of agricultural experience (patently absent in Firstly 1) but anyone who has any experience of grazing critters knows that they all possess an imprinted and genetic dislike to trees.
Grass (sugar) eating critters like cows & sheep instinctively know that trees are their enemy – grass doesn’t grow under trees. Given any/every opportunity, they will destroy any tree they come upon before it gets big enough to hurt them.
Just like us, there is nothing of interest in a tree for them.
Secondly. See attached
its a some census data for Scottish Livestock farming – two images made into one.
The top half shows sheep numbers and not much has changed in the last 10 years, so, you might say that Climate did cause the tree seeds to grow and make something.
But what happened is that ‘big livestock’ numbers fell quite dramatically.
Cows ain’t too good at climbing Munroes so they were never up there anyway eating baby trees as they found them. Livestock always remained on the lower ground.
But with cow numbers declined, the sheep came down off the hill to eat what the cows weren’t eating.
i.e. The sheep were not up on top the Munroes these last 10+ years, the cows were never there and so, tree-seeds as they flopped out of the derriers of our Avian Friends, resultant baby-trees weren’t instantly eaten the very minute they germinated.
And that is what Ms Watts has come upon.
Data from here
edit to add
It is what is causing Global Greening as seen in The Sahel
Effectively the same – abandoned farmland.
Here the sheep have abandoned the hill-tops so the trees have invaded.
In the Sahel, everybody including the goats abandoned the farms to go live a better (literally) life on a rubbish tip near The Capital City.
Their farms were then invaded by trees (Mesquite in the case of Sahel)
NASA Sputnik then flew over, saw green where was previously brown and jumped right in to declare “CO₂ did it”
sigh
I was with you all the way up to
a very cold place. aka Hell
Climate modelling clearly shows that the day the alarmists lose to reality Satan will be skating to work – but not before.
Peta of Newark, expansion or contraction of the vegetation range, either geographic or elevation, is another tool available to scientists to document the earth climate cycles. As a geologist I prefer sea level (as long as there is a continental mass in a polar region), but vegetation signals are also valid. The greening of the earth is documented by NASA, wherein chlorophyll has a very strong reflectance signal at around 720 nanometers, and natural reclamation of prior over-grazed lands is certainly only a very small part of that signal.
(deleted)
Maybe rethinking [post-modern] ecology is in order. If you have ever seen the BBC’s Springwatch programme in recent weeks you will know exactly what I mean by that.
Now, if I recall rightly CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher at ground level and it only gets well mixed in at altitude; something like 3 to 5 km up.
“I have now bagged more than 200 Munros” Out of how many?
“I must admit I did lose count” Some scientist.
So when trees recolonise at altitude you can rely on the Beyond Belief Corporation to come up with the appropriate phrasing:
“Recording Scotland’s extreme high-altitude trees”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65903065
Everything is extreme with these people – especially their ability to bore.
282 Munro’s in Scotland and, yes, ‘Munro bagging’ really is a thing amongst the hill walking fraternity. My dad lives in Scotland and he’s bagged quite a few himself.
Is losing count also a thing, Richard? Particularly when conducting a scientific exercise?
For those not familiar with the term, a Munro is a Scottish summit above 3000 feet.
That may not seem like much to many people in the vicinity of the rocky mountain chain, but the snow line in Scotland generally starts somewhere above 4000 feet, depending on recent years’ weather. Often lower where it collects in ravines and gullies.
Is your a dad a Mackenzie, still holding a grudge?
Damn them nasty Mackenzies 🙂
This was on the BBC without a mention of CO2 or a warming climate being the prime causes of the march of trees up mountains.
I grew up in rural Perthshire and spent a lot of time in the school and college holidays working as a grouse beater and ghillie at the deer stalking. This involved getting upp hills/mountains to altitudes of 2500ft or above most days, At the bottom of every peat bog were tree stumps, some under 3 or more metres of peat. There were sheep raised but they, sensibly stayed at lower altitudes, Red Deer certainly roamed all over although they tended to keep off difficult terrain unless getting out of the way of people. However feral goats would go anywhere and eat anything.
Nobody ever considers Mountain Hares aka Blue Hares. According to local folklore 3 Blue Hares ate as much as one sheep. So if one happened pass a Gun in a grouse shoot it would be shot and sold to the game dealer along with the grouse. Blue Hares would stay at a;titude all year round happily eating anything they could, especially in winter.
Despite all this at lower altitudes than these, but above 1500ft and 50years ago, you could find Rowan and Scots Pine growing where animals didn’t graze.
My view is, not backed by any research, this. Climate change to wetter and colder conditions killed off most of the high altitude trees in Scotland. these conditions prevented a regrowth even during warmer periods as peat bogs retain a lot of water most summers and every winter in Scotland and trees don’t like water logged roots. Grazing animals finish off any tree brave enough to put itself in danger at marginal altitudes.
At lower altitudes any tree growing will have been prevented by regular heather strip burning done to encourage regrowth of the heather, Grouse feed on young heather shoots and left to itself heather will grow into small bushes, which Blue Hares are happy with but grouse have difficulty feeding on,
Interestingly the sheep population in Scotland has declined in the last thirty years while the deer population has increased. Up to the 20th century people in the Highlands reared cattle to sell in autumn markets at Crieff and Falkirk and you can still follow the old drove roads. These would be grazed at high altitudes with herders living in Sheilings. The practice is no longer used to raise cattle. Although some of the buildings may have found new life as Bothies
It’s a complex environment, but warmer with more CO2 helps everything
“”Interestingly the call for the sheep population in Scotland has declined in the last thirty years while the deer population has increased.””
Hence the call for top predator rewilding
“”Landscape of fear: why we need the wolf””
https://www.the-guardian.com/environment/2020/nov/24/landscape-of-fear-why-we-need-the-wolf-rewilding-scotland
Observation is the founding principle of science. Yours carry considerable merit.
Well, this certainly illustrates the big lie of the warmunists, that higher CO2 and warming temperatures – not proven that the former causes the latter – mean a destroyed planet. It just means the continual change in earth’s climate and ecosystems and geology that has gone on for the last 4.5 billion years. Warmer, then colder, then warmer, then colder. Higher, then lower, then higher, then lower. Species move from here to there and back again. Or else species disappear, and are replaced by other species better adapted to the changed conditions.
None of that means destruction – it just indicates change. Nothing ever stays the same on our planet or in the universe. The entire universe is a constantly changing machine, in constant motion … there is no such thing as a static universe or static planet, or a static species.
As to be expected, warmunists have it bassackwards – any sane rational person would welcome more CO2 (up to greenhouse levels) and warmer weather up to the conditions of the Cretaceous period when the world was teeming with life.
Scotland lost the trees when it got colder? Seems the obvious answer. And the right answer by all evidence. Tree lines around the world descended in both altitude and latitude, not just Scotland..
It was many degrees warmer before is obvious.
Here is a valley in Norway: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23419006
Them new trees up there are Endangered.
We need to file suit to protect them … find some young Scots and convince them to file a childrens lawsuit agin the govt … protect our heritage!!!
Here are the links to the NOAA and NASA articles on the greening of the Earth due to CO2 enhancement.
Isn’t that right about the time when the world started to cool off at the end of the Holocene Optimum?
Yep.
I have never understand why the highlands are so bereft of trees. The latitude and elevation are similar to vast swathes of British Columbia, and the climate more temperate. And yet B.C. is covered in trees whereas the highlands are not.
Overgrazing could explain much of it, but I can’t believe that all of the highlands are overgrazed. Besides which, most conifers are not to ungulates’ liking.
Don’t forget the 14m trees that were cut down to make way for wind farms in Scotland. Will take along time to replace them naturally.
Do a search for “highland clearances”. Cutting down trees to make room for more sheep was part of it, although forcing peasant farmers off the land was the main thrust. You will also learn why disproportionate numbers of Scots emigrated after 1750, and where much of the cheap labour for Scotland’s rapid industrialisation in the late 18th century came from.
There was also a substantial iron smelting operation (using charcoal from the abundant trees) at Taynuilt near Oban, that operated from 1753 to 1876. The site was presumably chosen because trees were getting scarce in England. Replanting was definitely not part of forestry in those days.
Taynuilt is at fairly low altitude, less than 100ft. Native species trees at altitudes less than a thousand feet grow and reseed quite happily.
Again from personal experience of 800ft in Perthshire is that non-native species will grow above that but producing viable seed and nuts can be problematic. We had Horse Chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) and Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) that were over 50 years old when we arrived, in the 30 years after the Chestnuts flowered but never produced a single viable nut. The Sycamore on the other hand produced off spring most years. There was a single Larch. We transplanted a couple of Oak from lower altitudes and some Scots Pines (Pinus sylvestris) from a nursery, the oaks were growing at the roadside and would have been cut down before adulthood. They all took a few years to acclimatise. My dad got six ornamental, coloured leaves, from somewhere five survived and after about three decades of care and attention started to grow in any way. Ideal subjects for tree ring analysis by one Michael Mann. Rowan used to plant themselves thanks to birds.
So adding another 1000ft in altitude I don’t think that many if any would survive far less thrive even at 56.3°N.
I think the main species of softwood grown in Scotland are Sitka native to Alaska, and Lodge Pole Pine native to Canada and Alaska, Norwegian Spruce and Larch. All native to colder climates. As non-native species environmentalists don’t like them being grown. So if it wasn’t for a warmer climate then Scotland would be between Scylla and Charybdis as far as high altitude forestry is concerned
Confusing naturalist philosophy holds that earth’s climate, flora and fauna varied amazingly for millions of years but change now is unnatural and undesirable. Either humans are natural or humans are not natural, pick one.
When I declare to friends and family that humans are natural and therefore all they do is natural I get some strange looks
In cases such as this, one should eliminate other causes for the higher elevation growth. There might be a dozen. Richard Feynman commented on this aspect of research. My initial thought: How did the seeds get to the new height? If the seeds have continuously been carried there, why did they not grow? This is the sort of thought processes one does in a pub with friends and beer. I’ve got beer. Sarah can stop in and we can work on this.
At 2,250 feet on the east slopes of the Washington Cascades, I have several Western Mountain Ash (Sorbus sitchensis); being very dry here, I provide some water. West, and higher than here, they are common, and north into B.C.
The fruit hangs on the tree though the winter until changes** make it more palatable. Fresh they are astringent and mildly toxic. Late winter, birds come and in 2 or 3 days, the tree is cleaned of hundreds of orange berry-like pomes.
**freeze/thaw; fermentation ??
Regarding “tree lines” – – see this:
https://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf
Drunken birds? Don’t drink and fly! 🤪
Good gracious – is nothing sacred from the insidious increase of the dastardly Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere? However, it does have the apparent aadvantage of encouraging more scantily-clad young female researchers to attain heights that were previously unattainable!
Many factors can affect where trees can grow, not only grazing and altitude.
During one summer in the 1990’s, I drove up the road leading to the summit of Mount Washington, NH, which is known for extremely cold and windy weather. On that particular day, it was sunny and about 55 degrees at the summit, with only about a 15 mph wind.
The patterns of tree growth in that area were very surprising. Near the summits of all nearby mountains, there was only grass, as well as along the northern and western slopes down to about 4,000 ft elevation. However, along the steeper south-facing slopes, in the wind-shadow of the mountains, conifers grew to over 50 feet tall up to about 100 feet below the summits.
There was a high plateau off to one side of Mount Washington, about 4,000 ft elevation, which was mostly grassland, with a few trees having thick (6″ diameter) trunks that only grew less than 1 foot above the ground, then horizontally toward the southeast for several feet. There was a large, squarish boulder about 4 feet high in the middle of the plateau, with a single tree growing about 6 inches south of its edge. Its trunk grew straight up to about the height of the boulder, then turned horizontally to the southeast.
On that plateau, any trees that managed to sprout were bent over by the prevailing wind out of the northwest, and grazing animals had nothing to do with it. Trees that managed to sprout on a south-facing slope away from the wind could grow 50 ft tall or more, even at a higher altitude.