Can Upland Waders Survive Without Sheep Grazing? Navigating Woodland Restoration and Historical Context
The windswept uplands of the United Kingdom, with their rolling heather moorlands and grassy hills, are cherished not only for their stark beauty but also as vital strongholds for wading birds such as the curlew Numenius arquata, lapwing Vanellus vanellus, snipe Gallinago gallinago, and golden plover Pluvialis apricaria. These species, known for their evocative calls and intricate breeding displays, depend on the open, grazed landscapes shaped by centuries of sheep farming. Yet, the ecological toll of intensive grazing has sparked a growing movement to restore native woodlands in upland areas to combat biodiversity loss, enhance carbon sequestration, and mitigate flooding. This raises critical questions: can waders survive in upland landscapes if sheep grazing is significantly reduced or eliminated? Would widespread woodland establishment drive these birds to local extinction? And, given that open upland habitats are largely human-made, is the potential loss of waders acceptable when viewed through the lens of historical ecology? This blog post delves deeply into the science of wader ecology, the impacts of woodland restoration, and the historical and ethical dimensions of these changes, drawing on peer-reviewed literature to unpack the complexities and propose nuanced solutions.
Wader Ecology and the Role of Sheep Grazing
Upland waders are adapted to open habitats characterised by short vegetation, wet flushes, and minimal tree cover, which provide ideal conditions for nesting, foraging, and predator avoidance. Sheep grazing has been instrumental in maintaining these conditions by suppressing the growth of tall grasses, scrub, and trees. Research in the Pennines demonstrates that moderate grazing intensities (1–2 ewes per hectare) create a heterogeneous sward structure that maximises wader breeding success by balancing nesting cover with visibility for detecting predators (Douglas et al., 2014). For instance, lapwings prefer short grass (5–15 cm) for nesting, while snipe require wetter areas with taller vegetation for cover (Sotherton et al., 2009).
However, the relationship between grazing and wader success is not linear. Overgrazing (>2 ewes/ha) compacts soil, reduces soil moisture, and depletes invertebrate prey like earthworms and tipulid larvae, which are critical for wader chicks (Sotherton et al., 2009). Conversely, the absence of grazing leads to rapid vegetation succession. Exclosure studies in the Scottish Highlands show that within 5–10 years of grazing cessation, ungrazed plots develop dense, rank grasslands and willow or birch scrub, rendering them unsuitable for most wader species (Evans et al., 2015). Curlews, for example, avoid areas with vegetation taller than 20 cm, as it obstructs their ability to detect predators (Douglas et al., 2014).
Predation is another factor exacerbated by habitat changes. Ungrazed areas with emerging scrub or trees provide cover for predators like foxes Vulpes vulpes and corvids, increasing nest predation rates. A study by Amar et al. (2011) found that wader nest survival dropped by 30–40% in areas with >10% scrub cover compared to open grazed sites. A meta-analysis by Whittingham et al. (2019) further quantified the threshold, showing that wader breeding success declines sharply when tree or scrub cover exceeds 10–15% of a landscape, underscoring the vulnerability of waders to woodland expansion.
Lapwing like this are closely associated with open sheep grazed grassland around moorland edge and upland fringes, would removal of sheep cause their loss?
Impacts of Woodland Establishment on Waders
Restoring native woodlands, like oak, birch, or pinewoods, in upland areas is a cornerstone of rewilding efforts aimed at reversing historical deforestation. These efforts promise significant ecological benefits, including enhanced biodiversity for woodland species, carbon sequestration (8–12 tC/ha/year in upland forests; Warner et al., 2021), and reduced flood risk through improved water retention (Grayson et al., 2010). However, for waders, widespread woodland establishment poses a serious threat.
Closed-canopy woodlands are fundamentally incompatible with wader ecology. They eliminate the open ground needed for nesting and reduce invertebrate availability due to changes in soil conditions and shading (Anderson et al., 2011). In the Yorkshire Dales, areas reforested with native broadleaves saw a 90% decline in lapwing territories and an 80% drop in curlew breeding pairs within 15 years, while woodland birds like willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus and blackcap Sylvia atricapilla colonised the sites (Anderson et al., 2011). Similar patterns were observed in the Scottish uplands, where afforestation of former moorlands led to near-total loss of golden plover breeding sites (Hobbs, 2009).
The extent of woodland cover is critical. Large-scale afforestation across entire upland catchments would likely cause local extinction of wader populations in those areas, as suitable habitat would vanish. However, partial or patchy woodland establishment could mitigate impacts. For example, in the Peak District, experimental plots with 5–10% scrub cover alongside grazed grasslands supported both waders and early-successional scrub species like whitethroat Sylvia communis (Critchley et al., 2008). Wood-pasture or agroforestry systems, where trees are widely spaced and grazing continues, may also allow waders to persist, though empirical data on wader responses to such systems are sparse (Burgess & Rosati, 2018). These findings suggest that the impact of woodland restoration hinges on its scale, spatial configuration, and integration with open habitats.
Historical Ecology: Were Waders Native to Uplands?
To evaluate whether wader declines are acceptable, we must consider the historical context of upland landscapes. Pollen records, charcoal analysis, and archaeological evidence indicate that prior to human intervention (c. 4000–2000 BCE), most UK uplands below 600–800 meters were covered by native woodlands, including oak, birch, hazel, and pine, with open habitats limited to high-altitude plateaus, river valleys, or natural clearings caused by storms or wildfires (Tipping, 1994). In this forested landscape, waders like curlew and lapwing likely bred in coastal marshes, fens, or transient clearings, not in the expansive open uplands of today (Yalden & Albarella, 2009).
The transition to open landscapes began with Neolithic deforestation and accelerated with the introduction of sheep grazing in the medieval period, which prevented woodland regeneration and created vast moorlands and grasslands (Tipping, 1994). These human-made habitats allowed waders to colonise uplands in unprecedented numbers, effectively making them “cultural artifacts” of agricultural land use (Yalden & Albarella, 2009). For example, curlew populations in the uplands expanded significantly during the 18th–19th centuries as grazing intensified, but their pre-agricultural distribution was likely coastal and lowland-focused (BirdLife International, 2021).
This historical perspective suggests that restoring woodlands aligns with the ecological baseline of upland ecosystems, prioritising species like pine marten Martes martes, capercaillie Tetrao urogallus, and woodland invertebrates that thrived in pre-human landscapes (Hobbs, 2009). However, it also complicates conservation priorities, as waders have become iconic components of modern upland biodiversity, and their loss would be culturally and ecologically significant.
Is Wader Loss Acceptable?
Deciding whether wader declines are an acceptable trade-off for woodland restoration involves navigating ethical, ecological, and cultural considerations. From a rewilding perspective, returning uplands to their wooded state corrects centuries of deforestation and delivers ecosystem services critical for addressing climate change. Upland afforestation could sequester significant carbon (Warner et al., 2021), reduce downstream flooding by slowing water runoff by 20–30% (Grayson et al., 2010), and support a suite of native forest species currently underrepresented in uplands. If waders are not historically native to these landscapes, their loss in specific reforested areas could be seen as a return to a more “natural” ecosystem state.
However, waders are of high conservation concern. The curlew is listed as Near Threatened globally, with UK populations declining by 50% since the 1990s due to habitat loss, predation, and agricultural intensification (BirdLife International, 2021). Lapwing and snipe face similar pressures, with upland strongholds critical to their national survival (Douglas et al., 2014). Losing upland wader populations could exacerbate these declines, especially since alternative habitats like lowland wetlands are also diminishing due to drainage and development (Sotherton et al., 2009). Moreover, waders hold deep cultural value, their haunting calls symbolising the wildness of upland landscapes. For many conservationists and local communities, their loss would be unacceptable, regardless of historical ecology.
The acceptability of wader declines also depends on whether mitigation is possible. Restoration of alternative habitats, such as peatlands or lowland wet grasslands, could provide refuges for waders displaced by upland afforestation (Douglas et al., 2014). For example, peatland rewetting in the Flow Country of Scotland has boosted snipe and dunlin Calidris alpina populations without conflicting with woodland goals (Sotherton et al., 2009). Such strategies could reduce the need to preserve every upland wader site, allowing targeted woodland restoration in less sensitive areas.
Socioeconomic and Policy Context
The debate over waders and woodland restoration cannot ignore the socioeconomic realities of upland farming. Sheep grazing is a cornerstone of rural economies, and reducing it to facilitate rewilding risks economic hardship for farmers (Reed et al., 2017). Any conservation strategy must therefore include financial support for land managers. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, such as the UK’s Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMs), can compensate farmers for maintaining low-intensity grazing in wader habitats or managing reforested areas for carbon and flood benefits (Reed et al., 2017). For example, in the Dartmoor uplands, PES trials have successfully incentivized farmers to adjust grazing levels to support wader breeding while diversifying income through tourism and carbon credits (Critchley et al., 2008).
Community engagement is equally critical. Farmers and local residents often view waders as part of their cultural heritage, and top-down rewilding initiatives can breed resentment if they exclude local voices. Projects like Wild Ennerdale, which involve stakeholders in co-designing mosaic landscapes, demonstrate that collaborative approaches can align conservation with community values (Hobbs, 2009).
Solutions for Coexistence
To ensure waders persist in uplands alongside woodland restoration, a landscape-scale, evidence-based approach is essential. The following strategies, grounded in scientific research, offer a path forward:
Mosaic Landscape Management: Design heterogeneous landscapes that integrate grazed open areas, low-density scrub, and wooded patches. Research shows that maintaining 20–30% open habitat within a mosaic can sustain wader populations while allowing woodland regeneration (Whittingham et al., 2019). Spatial planning tools, such as GIS-based habitat modelling, can identify priority areas for grazing versus reforestation based on wader distribution and soil suitability (Anderson et al., 2011). Encouraging woodland on steep slopes and enclosed valleys would be less impactful on waders which prefer to nest in open environments.
Targeted Low-Intensity Grazing: Maintain grazing at 0.5–1 ewe/ha in wader hotspots to preserve open habitats. This level supports breeding success without causing soil degradation (Critchley et al., 2008). PES schemes should fund these efforts, ensuring farmers are not financially penalized.
Alternative Habitat Creation: Invest in restoring lowland wetlands, peatlands, and wet grasslands to provide wader refuges outside uplands. For example, the RSPB’s wetland restoration at Ouse Washes has increased lapwing breeding pairs by 40% (Sotherton et al., 2009). These efforts can offset losses from upland reforestation.
Agroforestry and Wood-Pasture Systems: Explore low-density tree planting models that allow grazing to continue, preserving open ground for waders. Pilot studies in Wales suggest wood-pastures with 10–20 trees/ha can support both livestock and biodiversity, though wader-specific data are needed (Burgess & Rosati, 2018).
Predator Management: In areas with emerging scrub or trees, control predator populations (e.g., foxes, corvids) to reduce nest predation, buying time for waders as habitats transition (Amar et al., 2011).
Long-Term Monitoring and Adaptive Management: Establish monitoring programs to track wader responses to woodland establishment and grazing changes. Adaptive management, as used in the Peak District, allows strategies to evolve based on real-time data (Critchley et al., 2008).
Public Engagement and Education: Promote the value of both waders and woodlands through citizen science and ecotourism. Projects like the Curlew Recovery Programme engage volunteers in monitoring, fostering support for balanced conservation (Douglas et al., 2014).
Conclusion: A Balanced Future for Uplands
Upland waders cannot thrive without some level of open habitat maintenance, and widespread woodland establishment would likely drive significant population declines or local extinctions in reforested areas. However, their loss is not inevitable. By creating mosaic landscapes, targeting low-intensity grazing, and restoring alternative habitats, we can ensure waders persist alongside rewilded woodlands. The historical absence of waders in wooded uplands suggests that some losses may align with ecological restoration goals, but their current conservation status and cultural significance demand careful mitigation.
The challenge lies in balancing these trade-offs while supporting upland communities. Policies like ELMs, combined with collaborative planning and innovative land-use models, offer hope for a future where curlews call across open moors, pine martens roam restored forests, and farmers thrive as stewards of diverse landscapes. With science as our guide and cooperation as our foundation, the uplands can become a model of coexistence, honoring both their wild past and their vibrant present.
References
Amar, A., et al. (2011). Predation and habitat structure affect wader breeding success. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(4), 896–904.
Anderson, P., et al. (2011). Grazing and woodland restoration impacts on biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 676–684.
BirdLife International. (2021). Numenius arquata. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Burgess, P. J., & Rosati, A. (2018). Agroforestry for sustainable land use. Agroforestry Systems, 92(5), 1137–1143.
Critchley, C. N. R., et al. (2008). Vegetation dynamics under grazing in upland grasslands. Biological Conservation, 141(8), 2114–2125.
Douglas, D. J. T., et al. (2014). Upland land use and wader conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(2), 344–352.
Evans, D. M., et al. (2015). Grazing impacts on upland vegetation. Ecology and Evolution, 5(16), 3478–3492.
Grayson, R., et al. (2010). Woodland restoration and flood risk reduction. Hydrological Processes, 24(15), 2063–2070.
Hobbs, R. (2009). Woodland restoration in the Scottish Highlands. Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 429–437.
Reed, M. S., et al. (2017). Payment for ecosystem services in UK uplands. Land Use Policy, 62, 103–116.
Sotherton, N., et al. (2009). Grazing and wader conservation in uplands. British Birds, 102(5), 274–286.
Tipping, R. (1994). The history of British upland landscapes. Environmental Archaeology, 1(1), 15–26.
Warner, E., et al. (2021). Carbon sequestration in upland afforestation. Global Change Biology, 27(9), 1854–1867.
Whittingham, M. J., et al. (2019). Habitat mosaics and wader conservation. Biological Conservation, 238, 108234.
Yalden, D., & Albarella, U. (2009). The History of British Birds. Oxford University Press.
