This piece is an extract from our A View from the Forest (previously Forestry Features) newsletter, which is emailed out at 4PM every Wednesday with a round-up of the week's top stories.
To receive our full, free newsletter straight to your email inbox, click here.
YOU might have noticed, but there are an awful lot of people who really don't like Sitka spruce. And by 'don't like' I mean consider it the Devil incarnate, and by 'awful lot' I mean basically anyone outside of forestry who cares enough about the UK's trees to offer an opinion.
The argument against one of the main species in the British timber trade usually goes a little something like this; Sitka spruce is a non-native tree that brings no biodiversity benefits and should be replaced by native, broadleaved species.
A high-profile story this week saw that very view play out in reality. It concerned a planned 700-hectare plantation in the Scottish Borders surrounding the much-loved John Buchan Way countryside walk. According to a group of "concerned residents", the coniferous woodland (made up mostly of, you guessed it, Sitka spruce) would add little environmental value to the local area. Instead, any new planting, it was argued, should be of native species. In a twist to the usual format, the residents were even fundraising to take Scottish Forestry to court and block the forest's creation.
The story probably won't surprise anyone in forestry, nor can it be forgotten that there those in the industry who would like to see an end to the dominance of Sitka spruce as a productive species.
But there is usually a nuance to sector-led discussion that is too easily lost.
Take another story from the past week that suggests that - despite the caricature of Sitka plantations as nature-killing beasts - it is far more complicated than that.
Scientists working to restore Scotland's temperate rainforest have discovered a globally-rare fungus on Sitka spruce trees that is typically only found in the Alps and Scandinavia. It is just the second time that Chamonixia caespitosa has been confirmed in the UK.
And here's the Sitka catch – the rare fungus forms a symbiotic relationship with the spruce and cannot survive without it, so removing the spruce kills the fungus. In other words, it is biodiversity that only lives because of the species.
Dr Andy Taylor, a molecular fungal ecologist at the James Hutton Institute, who is leading the restoration work, said: “A key question for us now is how prevalent this fungus is at this site – and perhaps more importantly does it occur elsewhere – and should its presence be taken into consideration when restoring these sites?”
Life is complicated. Why should tree species – and where and how we choose to plant them – be any different? Valid questions about Sitka spruce's long-term suitability (especially if Ips typographus continues to spread) should be asked and do need answered. But to pretend it's simply a case of 'Sitka bad'/'everything else good' does us all a disservice.
And probably holds us back.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here