UKH

I've spent a more than reasonable amount of time on many Scottish hills and mountains but I have rarely seen any sizable areas of trees above 600m. 

Obviously overgrazing and the shooting industry have played a big role in the lack of trees but I assume that the tallest summits with their subarctic climate would remain bare of trees in any case. 

So a couple of questions:

1) What is the natural tree line in Scotland (variable by area?)

2) Could Scottish skiing between trees be feasible? 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

From studying rowan and its relation to elevation in Snowdonia for a master's diss, I think you're about right for 600m, give or take. The treeline is determined by the summer temperature, not the winter temp, obviously, and this will be lower in much of Scotland than N Wales. I'd like to think you'd still get some krummholz at around the 700m contour, mind. See what Tranquillini has to say on the subject, if anything, maybe.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

there's quite a few publications if you search the ecological literature. Consensus seems to be that the natural tree line in places like the Cairngorms would be around 600m but it would be lower further north & west.

Miller, G. R., and R. P. Cummins. "Regeneration of Scots pine Pinus sylvestris at a natural tree‐line in the Cairngorm Mountains, Scotland." Ecography 5.1 (1982): 27-34.

is a little old but is one of the classic, frequently cited studies, there are several others from John Grace & colleagues at Edinburgh university.

edit to add that I've often skied between the trees, but usually on XC skis which might not be what you had in mind, more rarely I've started & finished a moutain tour in the woods, eg on Deeside

In reply to Doug:

Creag Fhiaclach, overlooking Loch an Eilean in the northern Cairngorms, is often cited as the highest remaining natural treeline at around 640m. 

Worthwhile tree skiing in Scotland will be fairly unusual, I think - we don't really get sufficient accumulation at those altitudes and the high pine woods often have deep heather between the trees which needs a really big dump to cover over properly. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

There's natural looking forestry (rewilding?) up to about the 600m contour in Glenfeshie, more extensive than on the OS maps I have. Was there a few months ago.

In reply to Flinticus:

'rewilding' has been underway in Glenfeshie (& elsewhere in the Cairngorms) for many years although the last change of ownership has made a lot of difference - before trees only had a chance within the fenced areas.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

The tree line in  Norway (Bergen area) is over 900 metres. Can't see why it would be lower in Scotland.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

To answer that question, comparisons are often made to SW Norway (very similar climate and geology to Scotland).

So if you go back 100 years, the answer would probably be the same, i.e. 600m or so. However the grazing pressure has been reduced significantly in the last 100 years, which has resulted in lot of natural regeneration and raised the tree line. I  think now up to about 1000m, where birch grows.

If you're interested in this, check out the first talk of Reforesting Scotland's gathering at the weekend, by the Scottish research scientist Duncan Halley (who now works in Norway). He does actually talk about Skiing between trees in Scotland and also how Gaelic place names suggest trees grew a lot higher than previously thought.

https://reforestingscotland.org/rs-gathering-2020/

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

From SMT's book, Hostile Habitats. ".....This effect is compounded by our oceanic climate, as high winds can depress shoot growth by dessication, physical damage and, under wet conditions, by windchill. The tree line is therefore of generally low altitude in Scotland, by comparison with other mountains at similar latitudes. The exact position of this limit varies, however, across the country. The particularly wet and windy western summers result in a tree line that is usually between 200m and 450m above sea level, but can be even lower in exposed parts of the far north-west. On more eastern hills, the tree line occurs at around 500-650m, although stunted trees can be found in sheltered sanctuaries at higher levels. Other types of upland vegetation show similar effects, occurring at lower levels in the "hyperoceanic" north-west."  

In reply to scoth:

the 600 m usually quoted is based on a few well known localites, eg Creag Fhiaclach as noted above, which for various reasons had no or very little grazing. The reduction of grazing has allowed some tree regeneration but not really much increase, so far, in altitude of the tree line - there have always been isolated small trees at higher altitudes, often birch or rowan

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I'm not sure what counts as a "tree line", but there are individual Scots pine trees within a few metres of the top of Meall a'Bhuachaille, 810m, above Glenmore.  It certainly isn't a sheltered location!

They're not very big, mind - perhaps 30cm or so.

Cheers.

Al

In reply to alibrightman:

There are a few isolated escaped dwarf sitkas (at least I think that's what they are) high on Ben Vorlich and Stuc a' Chroin. I'm fond of going up Vorlich via the hanging corrie between the N and NW ridges and there are some tiny trees in there. There's also at least one just below the top of Stuc, off to your right if heading from the buttress to the summit - tiny, as I say, but it's at about 950m.

As for proper treelines, the one on the east side of Benvane above Strathyre is pretty high in Scottish terms.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I've cycled into a tree in Scotland with skiis on my back if that helps?

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

There was a post last year of a very similiar nature last year.  One of the posters had done, a thesis, I think on this.

Given the chance once trees get going, even small trees will start to increase in size as they gradually provide increased shelter for themselves.

In the last 40 years of visiting the middle ski station at Aviemore there are increasing numbers of, I think Scots Pine as you walk over to the Northern Corries, quite high up on the first ridges. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

point 2. Friends and I have cross country skied between the trees going from the Cairngorm ski car park to the shores of Loch Morlich, within the last 10 years.

The tree line has been much higher in the past, I recall finding very old stumps and tree roots at well over 600 metres on a walk in to climb Squareface.

In reply to scoth:

Thanks!  pretty interesting 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Have seen a few around 900m (probably non indigenous) conifers just off the Aonach Eagach & Curved Ridge . Both in extremely sheltered locations and I doubt they will get much bigger.

In reply to goatee:

Indeed. 1038m at Kvitfjell Norway. Drop a 100m down and you start to ski in the forest more and more. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

If you look at the tree planting south east of Loch Bad an Sgalaig you see the size of the young trees drop dramatically as you go up the eastern side of Meall a' Ghlas Leothaid.  I can't remember when the trees were planted but it was some time ago.  On the exposed flank they're incredibly slow growing.  Yet, mature trees thrive at a similar altitude and direction of slope between Male a' Ghiuthais and the western shore of Loch Maree.  This makes me think that the tree line as naturally acquired over long times is quite higher than the tree line at which isolated saplings can make it on their own.  

I'd be interested to hear the argument for and against using more hardy foreign species to provide some initial cover for later growth native forest...

In reply to wintertree:

They just become naturally dwarfed, as their growing season is so short. The down side is it takes a long time for the tips of the trees to grow up out of the reach of grazing deer. 

In reply to wintertree:

I think you're trying to describe whats usually reffered to as the timber line (upper limit of more or less continous tree cover) & the tree line or upper limit of trees, which is often much higher. In most of Europe there is an interaction with grazing plus the slow growth rate at altitude which makes teasing out the causal factors quite difficult although the physiological limits to tree growth are a little easier to study

In reply to summo/goatee - but it's lower by the coast - I've been looking at the map around Kvinnheread and Melderskin and it varies between about 550 and 800 depending on whether it's facing the West/sea or the East.

I also looked at Dalsfjord , by Volda, an area I'm familiar with and along the sides of the fjord they're at about 525, but at the end of the valley it goes up to about 700.

In reply to wbo2:

Windblow, thinner soils perhaps too. 

In reply to Joak:

I would have thought the oceanic climate of west Scotland isn't that much different from the oceanic climate of south-western Norway.

In reply to OwenM:

Aye I totally agree, the quote I used from Hostile Habitats was aimed at the OP's first question asking if the tree line in Scotland has regional variations.  

Wind is the limiting factor for the tree line in the UK. The upper edge of the forests (consistent cover) as many have mentioned is about 600m but can be more or less depending on how exposed the site is. Trees can of course and do, again as others have said can grow much higher than this but do not generally form more densely wooded habitats. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

tree skiing at the bottom of the car park runs in glencoe is more common than you might think! unfortunately the gradient is almost flat by the time you reach the trees, so the fun is limited... but i have skied knee deep powder on a base in the car park trees on more than a handful of occasions. It would be nice if they would extend the plantation up the slope a little way, it would help catch the snow as well!

And of course you can have around 300m vertical of tree skiing on the rare occasions you can ski to the cat park at nevis range! but you can realistically only ski down the bike track or the forest road as the vegetation is too dense, so its more tree lined skiing rather than actual tree skiing. skiing the bike track is pretty awesome though, like a pump track!

In reply to Deako:

It is just as windy in Scandinavia, but what they don't have are vast deer and sheep herds roaming free for the last few hundred years, and no muirburn.  

In reply to summo:

Is it?  Or rather,  is it in comparable parts of Scandinavia at the same latitudes? They may have different prevailing weather systems. 

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Doubtful if you compare latitudes like for like, Inverness is roughly the same as Gothenburg, all of Norway is obviously north of that.

Climatic influences, western Norway often picks depressions right through winter and gets a real battering. Often because central and eastern Norway, sweden has a blocking high pressure which means temps can be persistently below zero for 3-5 months most winters. They still get the storms either side of this though. 

From everything I know of tree growth, climates and so on, there is no reason why anywhere in the UK couldn't have vastly more forest. It will vary in species, density, height etc.. but it could still have trees. 

In reply to summo:

You tend to get a latitude=altitude thing re birdlife. Having had years mainly doing stuff in the Cairngorms and the central Highlands, and being accustomed to ptarmigan starting from about 850m, it was a bit of a shock to go to Ben Loyal one day and find ptarmigan at about 300m. A friend who has been to Svalbard says he's seen ptarmigan there on the beach.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I'd imagine bird life location relates to food? Different plants and insects with different average temperatures etc... that given species favour. There might be a different twist for some places related to absence of predators too and no need for ground cover etc.. 

In reply to summo:

Yes, I suspect so - ptarmigan clearly like it quite cold and dry, which it's more likely to be at lower levels further north, and the food types move downhill accordingly. Would be interesting to know if there's an upper limit for ptarmigan in Arctic Norway, in a way that there isn't in Scotland.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Fjällripa in Swedish. I don't think there's any limit, on the hills and uplands of the Nordics including the area north of the artic circle in Norway, Sweden and Finland. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Thanks for the responses everyone, really interesting stuff. I hadn't appreciated that the wind would be such an important factor, even at low levels. 

In reply to scoth:

Thanks for the link, I've read some of Duncan Halley's publications but had never heard him speak before. In a similar vein, & in places quoting Duncan Halley, a recent presentation by Helen Armstrong to the Botancal Society of Scotland might be of interest to some

The Scottish Uplands: how to revive a degraded landscape

follow link from https://www.botanical-society-scotland.org.uk/node/581

edit to add, presentation starts at about 12 minutes into the video

In reply to summo
I’m not clued up on relative windiness of scadanavia however wind is still the main limiting factor in the UK. It’s true that there are significant grazing pressures which prevent regeneration of woodlands in the UK however even if this pressure was removed, forests would still have a natural altitude to which they regenerate into closed canopy woodlands. This is not black and white of course and there would be an intergrade into more shrubby to eventually more open habitats as height increases. 

In reply to Mike-W-99:

Junipers will grow at altitudes of up to 1000m in Scotland.

In reply to Deako:

Some data here: https://globalwindatlas.info/

I suspect the answer may be that Norway has higher mountains and steeper sided valleys, so that areas that are sufficiently sheltered for tree growth typically extend to higher altitudes there. 

In reply to Deako:

No one is suggesting a closed canopy deciduous forest over the cairngorm plateau. 

Plenty stunted pine, spruce, larch, birch, juniper and rowan up towards to tree line. You won't get a 25m spruce of course, but full cover forest of 10-20m pine/spruce/birch is common from 400-800m. Get below 500m and you start to see all the other hard wood species. 

Generally at altitudes below 600m there is still a timber industry at 61,62,63 degrees north, this put it's way north of the Shetlands in a UK perspective. 

The reality is the UK uplands for the most part don't even have stunted widely spaced trees and it's entirely down to our intervention. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

The White Mountains in the States have a similar climate to Britain I think, and they had trees above 4000ft.  Is it to do with the deer here? A lot of the trees high up were very small and would look very young but could be decades old. Perhaps this kind of delayed growth would leave them vulnerable to being eaten for too long for them to get established? 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Nothing that couldn't be solved with wolves, lynx and mountain lion to keep the deer and elk population in check!! 

In reply to summo:

From what I've heard, they were close to reintroducing lynx (something about there being no way of blocking the reintroduction of a species which was once native under EU law) but the likelihood is a lot slimmer with Brexit. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I have seen them at 2000m in the West (Breheimen) and come across nests at 1000m in the Arctic mainland, not been much higher at those latitudes.

In reply to PaulJepson:

Who were 'they' ? I imagine the EU law in question was the 1992 Habitats Directive which asks Member States to

"study the desirability of re-introducing species in Annex IV that are native to their territory where this might contribute to their conservation" (Article 22). Annex IV is a list of protected species which includes lynx, wolf, bear & many others. This is a pretty weak clause, no doubt the British study for wolf lasted a few seconds.

Oddly the Scottish government blocked early attempts to reintroduce beavers to Scotland as it would be damaging to other protected species & habitats.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

There's a rowan at 1096m on Ben Macdui. https://twitter.com/sjraouk/status/1172945640797691904

Without the influence of man (browsing by livestock and other herbivores with artificially high population densities) not only would the timberline and treeline be higher, but there would also be another biome above that which is now almost completely missing in Scotland - montane scrub. This would go much higher up the hills and onto hilltops at lower altitudes.

Montane scrub will be familiar to those who've been in the hills of northern Europe. It's largely comprised of willows - some familiar (e.g. eared willow) but also several less familiar and quite distinctive-looking species (downy, woolly, whortle-leaved and mountain willow). In Scotland these montane willows are now just clinging on at a few isolated sites, mostly on inaccessible ledges, and mostly declining through over-browsing. In northern Europe this habitat supports a few bird species that we have likely lost here. A good place to see some of these and get a feel for what the higher Scottish hills would look like is at the exclosure west of Lochan na Lairige at Ben Lawers.