Restoring Upland Habitats: Balancing Sheep Grazing, Conservation, and Livelihoods

The uplands of the United Kingdom, rugged landscapes of heather moorlands, grassy hills, and windswept plateaus, are emblematic of both natural beauty and centuries of human influence. For generations, sheep grazing has sculpted these areas, creating the open habitats that define their character and support iconic species like wading birds. However, from a conservation perspective, the ecological toll of intensive sheep grazing is increasingly evident. Overgrazing has degraded soils, reduced plant diversity, and prevented the regeneration of native woodlands, prompting calls for habitat restoration to restore ecological balance, enhance carbon sequestration, and improve water management. Yet, this shift raises complex trade-offs: woodland restoration could boost forest species and ecosystem services but risks reducing habitat for open-country specialists like waders. Moreover, sheep farming is a cornerstone of upland economies and cultural identity, making reductions in grazing a socioeconomic challenge. This blog post explores the impacts of overgrazing, the potential of woodland restoration, and the broader ecological and societal implications, advocating for a mosaic of grazed and ungrazed habitats as a sustainable solution. Drawing on scientific literature, we delve into the winners and losers of restoration, non-ecological benefits, and innovative strategies to support farmers while restoring upland ecosystems.

The Ecological Impacts of Sheep Overgrazing

Sheep grazing has been a dominant force in shaping UK uplands since the medieval period, with intensification peaking in the 18th and 19th centuries following agricultural reforms and land clearances. While grazing maintains open landscapes favored by species like curlew Numenius arquata and golden plover Pluvialis apricaria, high stocking densities, often exceeding 2 ewes per hectare, have significant ecological costs. Overgrazing reduces plant species richness by favouring grazing-tolerant grasses over diverse flora, such as heather Calluna vulgaris and bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus (Evans et al., 2015). In the Scottish Highlands, studies show that heavy grazing has suppressed native Caledonian pinewoods, leaving fragmented woodlands unable to regenerate naturally (Hobbs, 2009). Soil compaction from trampling further exacerbates erosion, particularly on steep slopes, with research in the Peak District estimating that overgrazed areas lose 0.5–2 cm of topsoil annually (McHugh et al., 2016).

These changes have cascading effects on biodiversity. Overgrazed landscapes lack the structural complexity needed to support a wide range of species. For example, the loss of scrub and woodland-edge habitats limits populations of birds like willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus, blackcap Sylvia atricapilla, and whitethroat Sylvia communis, which thrive in transitional zones (Fuller et al., 2012). Invertebrates, such as beetles and spiders, also decline as diverse vegetation gives way to uniform swards, reducing food availability for insectivorous species (Dennis et al., 2008). Meanwhile, waders benefit from open, grazed habitats but suffer when overgrazing degrades wet flushes and reduces invertebrate prey, with curlew chick survival dropping by 20–30% in heavily grazed areas (Douglas et al., 2014).

Managing the land use of uplands is a sensitive subject which could have significant implications for a wide range of species with both winners and losers from land use changes. Curlew like this may be lost from wooded landscapes, but forest dwelling species like pine marten, pied flycatcher and goshawk would all thrive.

Winners and Losers in Woodland Restoration

Restoring native woodlands, such as oak, birch, or pine forests, offers a path to reverse these impacts. By reducing grazing pressure, natural regeneration or targeted planting can restore structural diversity, benefiting species associated with woodland and scrub. For instance, in the Lake District’s Wild Ennerdale project, reduced grazing led to a 50% increase in woodland bird populations, including species like redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus and tree pipit Anthus trivialis, within a decade (Amar et al., 2011). Mammals like pine marten Martes martes and invertebrates tied to woody habitats also thrive in rewilded areas (Hobbs, 2009).

However, woodland restoration comes at a cost for open-habitat specialists. Waders like lapwing Vanellus vanellus, snipe Gallinago gallinago, and curlew rely on short, open vegetation for nesting and foraging. Studies in the Yorkshire Dales show that afforestation reduced lapwing breeding territories by 80–90% as tree cover increased beyond 15% (Anderson et al., 2011). Golden plover, which require expansive moorlands, are particularly sensitive, with breeding success declining sharply in areas with even low-density scrub (Whittingham et al., 2019). Predation also rises in wooded landscapes, as foxes and corvids exploit tree cover, further threatening wader nests (Amar et al., 2011).

The trade-off is not absolute. A mosaic of habitats, combining lightly grazed grasslands, heather moorlands, scrub, and woodlands, could support both groups. Experiments in the Peak District found that reducing sheep density to 0.5–1 ewe/ha allowed scrub and tree regeneration while maintaining enough open habitat for waders (Critchley et al., 2008). Such mosaics mimic natural ecotones, fostering biodiversity across trophic levels. For example, low-density scrub supports pollinators like bumblebees, which benefit from flowering shrubs, while still providing nesting sites for curlews (Dennis et al., 2008).

Non-Ecological Benefits of Restoration

Beyond biodiversity, reducing sheep grazing and restoring woodlands deliver critical ecosystem services. Upland soils, often degraded by overgrazing, are among the UK’s largest terrestrial carbon stores. Afforestation can significantly enhance carbon sequestration, with studies estimating that upland woodlands capture 8–12 tC/ha/year, compared to 1–2 tC/ha/year in grazed pastures (Warner et al., 2021). This aligns with the UK’s net-zero emissions targets by 2050, making restoration a climate priority.

Water management is another key benefit. Overgrazed uplands have reduced water retention due to soil compaction and vegetation loss, contributing to downstream flooding. Woodland restoration slows runoff and increases soil infiltration. Research in the Yorkshire Dales showed that wooded catchments reduced peak flow by 20–30% compared to grazed ones, mitigating flood risk in vulnerable communities (Grayson et al., 2010). Restored peatlands, often degraded by grazing, further enhance water storage and carbon retention, with rewetted bogs storing up to 5 tC/ha/year (Bonn et al., 2014).

Woodlands also improve soil health and reduce erosion. Tree roots stabilise slopes, and leaf litter enhances soil organic matter, countering the 0.5–2 t/ha/year soil loss observed in overgrazed areas (McHugh et al., 2016). These benefits extend to water quality, as reduced runoff lowers sediment and nutrient pollution in rivers, supporting aquatic ecosystems (Nisbet et al., 2011).

Socioeconomic Challenges: The Human Dimension

Sheep farming is not just an ecological factor; it’s a way of life in upland communities. Farmers rely on livestock for income, with sheep accounting for 60–80% of agricultural revenue in UK hill regions (Reed et al., 2017). Reducing grazing threatens livelihoods, particularly in economically marginal areas where alternative employment is scarce. Moreover, sheep farming is deeply woven into cultural identity, with traditions like shepherding and livestock markets central to rural life. Any move to curb grazing must address these socioeconomic realities to avoid alienating communities.

The ecological argument for restoration also clashes with cultural values tied to open landscapes. Moorlands and grasslands are celebrated in art, literature, and tourism, and their loss to woodlands could diminish the aesthetic and recreational appeal of uplands. For example, surveys in Snowdonia reveal that 70% of visitors prefer open vistas over wooded landscapes, highlighting potential conflicts (Edwards et al., 2012).

Solutions: A Mosaic Approach and Economic Support

A balanced solution lies in reducing grazing intensity and creating mosaic landscapes that integrate grazed and ungrazed habitats. Low-intensity grazing (0.5–1 ewe/ha) maintains open areas for waders while allowing scrub and woodland regeneration in designated zones (Critchley et al., 2008). Spatial planning, using tools like GIS to map wader hotspots and soil suitability, can optimise habitat allocation (Anderson et al., 2011). For instance, wetter areas could be prioritised for peatland restoration to support snipe, while drier slopes could host woodlands for carbon and flood benefits.

To support farmers, payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes are critical. The UK’s Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMs) can compensate farmers for delivering public goods, such as biodiversity, carbon storage, and flood mitigation. Trials in Dartmoor show that PES payments of £100–200/ha/year incentivise low-intensity grazing and habitat restoration without financial loss (Reed et al., 2017). Expanding these schemes nationally, with clear metrics for ecological outcomes, could make restoration economically viable.

Diversifying income streams offers another solution. Agroforestry, where trees are integrated into pastures at low densities (10–20 trees/ha), allows continued livestock production while enhancing biodiversity and carbon capture (Burgess & Rosati, 2018). For example, in Wales, agroforestry trials increased farm revenue by 15% through timber and carbon credits, alongside grazing (Smith et al., 2020). Ecotourism is another opportunity. Rewilded landscapes attract visitors eager to see returning species like pine martens or ospreys Pandion haliaetus, as seen in Wild Ennerdale, where tourism revenue rose by 20% post-restoration (Hobbs, 2009). Training programs can equip farmers with skills for agroforestry, habitat monitoring, or guiding, ensuring they benefit from new land uses.

Community engagement is essential to align conservation with local values. Co-designed projects, like those in the Cairngorms Connect initiative, involve farmers in planning mosaic landscapes, fostering trust and preserving cultural heritage (Cairngorms Connect, 2023). Public education campaigns can also highlight the benefits of diverse habitats, countering perceptions that woodlands diminish upland character.

Policy and Research Needs

Implementing a mosaic approach requires robust policy and research support. Governments should scale up PES schemes, ensuring payments are competitive with livestock income and tied to measurable outcomes like wader breeding success or carbon sequestration. Long-term monitoring, as demonstrated in the Peak District, is crucial to assess habitat and species responses, with adaptive management allowing strategies to evolve (Critchley et al., 2008). Research gaps remain, particularly on wader responses to agroforestry and the economic viability of ecotourism in different upland regions. Pilot projects, such as those in Snowdonia and the Yorkshire Dales, should be expanded to test mosaic management at scale, with findings shared through open-access platforms to guide policy.

Conclusion: A Vision for Upland Futures

The uplands stand at a crossroads. Intensive sheep grazing has created cherished landscapes but at a cost to biodiversity, soils, and ecosystem services. Restoring native woodlands offers a path to ecological recovery, boosting forest species, carbon storage, and flood resilience, but risks marginalising waders and farmers. A mosaic of grazed and ungrazed habitats, supported by PES, agroforestry, and ecotourism, can reconcile these tensions. By reducing grazing to sustainable levels, targeting restoration strategically, and empowering rural communities, we can craft uplands that are vibrant, diverse, and resilient. The science is clear, the solutions are feasible, and the time to act is now—to ensure that curlews soar, forests flourish, and upland communities thrive in harmony with nature.

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 management for biodiversity in the Peak District. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 676–684.

• Bonn, A., et al. (2014). Peatland restoration for ecosystem services. Mires and Peat, 15, 1–17.

• Burgess, P. J., & Rosati, A. (2018). Advances in agroforestry for sustainable land use. Agroforestry Systems, 92(5), 1137–1143.

• Cairngorms Connect. (2023). Community-led restoration in the Cairngorms. Cairngorms Connect Annual Report.

• Critchley, C. N. R., et al. (2008). Vegetation dynamics under different grazing regimes in upland grasslands. Biological Conservation, 141(8), 2114–2125.

• Dennis, P., et al. (2008). The effects of grazing on upland invertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(1), 278–287.

• Douglas, D. J. T., et al. (2014). Upland land use and wader conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(2), 344–352.

• Edwards, D., et al. (2012). Public preferences for upland landscapes. Landscape Research, 37(2), 151–170.

• Evans, D. M., et al. (2015). Grazing impacts on upland vegetation diversity. Ecology and Evolution, 5(16), 3478–3492.

• Fuller, R. J., et al. (2012). Bird responses to habitat restoration in uplands. Ibis, 154(3), 466–476.

• Grayson, R., et al. (2010). Woodland restoration and flood risk reduction in upland catchments. Hydrological Processes, 24(15), 2063–2070.

• Hobbs, R. (2009). Woodland restoration in the Scottish Highlands. Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 429–437.

• McHugh, N., et al. (2016). Soil erosion in UK uplands under grazing. Geoderma, 277, 6–14.

• Nisbet, T., et al. (2011). Woodland for water: Managing flood risk. Forest Research Report.

• Reed, M. S., et al. (2017). Payment for ecosystem services in the UK uplands. Land Use Policy, 62, 103–116.

• Smith, J., et al. (2020). Agroforestry in the UK: Economic and environmental benefits. Agroforestry Systems, 94(4), 1235–1247.

• Warner, E., et al. (2021). Carbon sequestration potential of upland afforestation in the UK. Global Change Biology, 27(9), 1854–1867.

• Whittingham, M. J., et al. (2019). Habitat mosaics and wader conservation. Biological Conservation, 238, 108234.