The Conservation and management of Sea

Buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides) in the UK

Report of the workshop held at Saltfleetby-

Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC on 17-
18 September 2009

Paul Rooney, John Houston and Graham Weaver

Sand Dune and Shingle Network

Occasional Paper No.3
 The conservation and management of
Sea Buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides)
in the UK

Report of the workshop held at

Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar
Point SAC on 17-18 September 2009

Organised by the Sand Dune and Shingle Network

on behalf of Natural England

Report prepared by
Paul Rooney, John Houston and Graham Weaver

Sand Dune and Shingle Network

Occasional Paper No.3
Published by Liverpool Hope University Press
 Foreword
The Sand Dune and Shingle Network supports the dissemination of good practice in coastal dune
and shingle management through national and international networking activities, the organisation
of conferences, seminars, workshops and training events and contributions to the development of
technical advice based on existing knowledge, information and data.

The network was established in 2006 with a grant from the Higher Education Innovation Fund provided
through the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The network works closely with the UK
statutory agencies for nature conservation and through a Memorandum of Agreement with Natural
England between 2008 and 2011 delivered a series of tasks, one of which was the ‘Sea Buckthorn
Workshop’ which makes up this volume.

The establishment of an occasional series of publications allows Liverpool Hope University to

disseminate a range of products through the network website at www.hope.ac.uk/coast. The series
will include workshop reports, subject reviews, reports of study tours and curriculum materials.

Paul Rooney
Senior Lecturer
Department of Geography
Faculty of Sciences and Social Sciences

Series Editor
[email protected]

2
Acknowledgements

The report has been compiled by Paul Rooney, John Houston and Graham Weaver based on the
presentations and discussions at the Sea Buckthorn Workshop held at Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe
Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC in Eastern England on 17-18 September 2009 and including additional
information. The contribution of all workshop participants is acknowledged. Particular thanks are given
to the site hosts, Simon Cooter of Natural England and Kev Wilson of Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and
the staff of the Gibraltar Point Field Studies Centre.

The report was proofread by Marc Jones with design and layout by Ray Burns of Liverpool Hope
University.

3
 Contents Page

1. Introduction to the workshop 5

Graham Weaver
2. Current UK status and guidance 6
Graham Weaver
3. Sea buckthorn in the UK: a review 9
Paul Rooney
4. Conservation of the EU habitat type 13
Graham Weaver & John Houston
5. Management case studies 17
John Houston
Gibraltar Point NNR –Kev Wilson
Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes NNR- Simon Cooter
Merthyr Mawr –Duncan Ludlow
East Lothian Council –Duncan Priddle

6. Follow up and action points 32

Graham Weaver
7. References 33
8. Workshop participants 36

Cover photographs clockwise from top left: Demonstration of management equipment at workshop;
suckering sea buckthorn scrub at Gibraltar Point; brown-tail moth caterpillar on Terschelling; sea
buckthorn scrub in foredune community at Ainsdale Sand Dunes NNR; sea buckthorn fruit; sea
buckthorn clearance in East Lothian © East Lothian Council. All other photographs © John Houston.

Note on nomenclature; Both Hippophaë rhamnoides and Sea Buckthorn have various spellings in the
literature. In this document lower case ‘sea buckthorn’ is used and the spelling Hippophaë preferred.
The EU interpretation manual of European Union Habitats uses Sea-buckthorn and Hippophae
rhamnoides. As far as possible the spelling linked to its source has been retained (e.g. Ranwell 1972,
Rodwell 2000).

Please reference as: Rooney, P.J., Houston, J.A. and Weaver, G. 2011. The conservation and
management of Sea Buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides) in the UK: report of the workshop at
Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC, 17-18 September 2009. Sand Dune and
Shingle Network: Occasional Paper No. 3, Liverpool Hope University Press.

ISBN: 978-1-898749-10-3

Designed and printed by Liverpool Hope University Reprographics Unit.

© Liverpool Hope University Press

4
1. Introduction to the workshop

Graham Weaver
Sea buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides) is a native British species but one which has been widely
introduced beyond its native range for reasons including dune stabilisation, protection of forestry
plantations, visitor control and amenity. The invasive nature of the species became apparent in the
years following the outbreaks of myxomatosis in the 1950s which virtually wiped out rabbit populations
in many dune systems.

The problems and a discussion of what to do with the species at selected sites was the subject of a
specific study group in the 1960s, chaired by Derek Ranwell of the Coastal Ecology Research Station
(part of the then Nature Conservancy) which led to the publication of The Management of Sea
Buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides L.) on selected sites in Great Britain (Ranwell, 1972).

Since that publication, and largely or partly because if it, several sites have adopted policies to
eradicate or control sea buckthorn scrub. Recently, however, a number of developments have put
some of this work into a new perspective and there is a need to re-visit some of our basic management
assumptions.

The publication of The Nature Conservation Value of Scrub in Britain (Mortimer et al. 2000) re-
considered the place of scrub as part of a habitat mosaic and the Habitats Directive of 19921 has
identified ‘Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides’ as an EU habitat in need of conservation.

The present situation is that two Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) in England now include sea
buckthorn scrub as a conservation feature and a number of dune managers are re-thinking their attitude
to scrub in general. What place does sea buckthorn have in dune vegetation?

It is true that our knowledge of dune scrub has lagged behind our knowledge of other aspects of dune
ecology and so the workshop was intended to stimulate discussion.

The objectives of the workshop were;

To create an opportunity for those involved to share their knowledge and discuss the challenges, and

To begin to develop a consensus on management and methods

One of the key questions, as yet unanswered, is whether we should be worried at all about sea
buckthorn ‘invasion’. Might it not be a part of a cycle of scrub growth and scrub decline? But can we
afford to take the chance?

1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

5
 2. Current UK status and guidance

Graham Weaver
The Sand Dune Survey of Great Britain (1987-1990)2 (Dargie 1993, 1995: Radley 1994) recorded
650ha of sea buckthorn scrub in the UK, of which 250ha is considered to be in its native range along
the east coast.

Figure 1: The native range of sea buckthorn in the UK © JNCC

For England the survey recorded a total area of dune scrub of about 760 ha, split into 370 ha of sea
buckthorn scrub and 390 ha of ‘other scrub’. This covers about 14% of the total dune habitat in
England (c. 5500 ha).

Dune scrub, and especially sea buckthorn scrub, has not generally been considered to be a desirable
feature on sand dunes in the UK. Although there has been some reconsideration of this position the
current guidelines (1989) for the selection of biological SSSIs on sand dunes3 states:

“Except in a limited number of cases (e.g. native Hippophae rhamnoides in south-east England), dune
scrub, particularly with Ulex europeus, Pinus spp., and Betula spp., represent an artificial phase in
dune succession. Dune systems in Britain are not large enough nor do they normally have a sufficient
age to support true succession to primary dune scrub or woodland, though any known examples should
be selected.”

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan also considers the development of dune scrub to be an undesirable
trend which is best countered by management practices such as grazing. The UK Habitat Action Plan
for coastal sand dunes 19994 states;

2 The reports for Scotland, Wales and England are published both separately and together. The combined report is cited as Radley G.P.
and Dargie T.C.D., Sand Dunes - Parts 1, 2 and 3 together, ISBN 1 873701 31 4. See http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2158 for details.
3 The guide to the selection of SSSIs on coastlands in the UK is found at www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/sssi_ptC1.pd
4 Although now superseded the UK Habitat Action Plan for coastal sand dunes is available at www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=28

6
“The fixed dune communities ... are, or have been, maintained by grazing, whether by domestic stock
or by rabbits. In their absence, the succession proceeds to rough grass and scrub. Dune scrub can
include several species but only one of them, sea buckthorn, is largely confined to dunes; it is native
to eastern England and south-east Scotland and has been widely introduced elsewhere, where its very
invasive nature can cause problems. ”

“In the absence of human interference, most stable dunes, with the exception of those experiencing
severe exposure, would develop into scrub and woodland. The preponderance of grassland and heath
vegetation on British dunes is due to a long history of grazing by livestock. Continued grazing is
normally necessary to maintain the typical fixed dune communities ...”

“A more widespread problem is under-grazing, leading to invasion by coarse grasses and scrub, though
rabbits are locally effective in maintaining a short turf.”

The statutory nature conservation agencies in the UK are responsible for the assessment of ‘condition’
of sand dune habitats. The assessment of condition follows Common Standards Monitoring Guidance
prepared by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The Common Standards Monitoring
Guidance for Sand Dune Habitats5 gives the following target (as an example) in relation to fixed dune
grassland;

Fixed dune grassland - Vegetation composition: negative indicator species: Non-native species,
including sea buckthorn where introduced, should be no more than rare.

The guidance makes the comment that where Hippophae rhamnoides is native (e.g. in some sites in
eastern England) the species is not counted as a negative indicator but it has been widely introduced
elsewhere and has proved very invasive.

However, the Common Standards Monitoring Guidance does recognise that the EU Habitats Directive
identifies sea buckthorn scrub as forming a unique and special component of the habitat mosaic in
dune systems. The EU Habitat type H2160 ‘Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides’ is described as ‘Sea-
buckthorn formations of forest colonisation in both dry and humid dune depressions’ with the main
species being Hippophae rhamnoides6. The UK guidance confirms that ‘H2160 Dunes with Hippophae
rhamnoides’ is a qualifying feature on two sites in eastern England, where Hippophae rhamnoides,
generally an introduced species, is native.

The UK habitat account for 2160 dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides7 states that “the distribution
and ecological variation of native stands in the UK is limited, so one site in eastern England has been
selected to represent the native occurrence of the habitat. Stands resulting from introductions are not
considered eligible for site selection in the UK.”

The main site identified as a Special Area of Conservation (Natura 2000 site) in the UK is the Salfleetby-
Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC8 in Lincolnshire. The other UK site where ‘dunes with
Hippophae rhamnoides’ is included on the SAC citation as a qualifying feature but not a main reason
for selection is the Humber Estuary.

5 The Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Sand Dune Habitats (Version August 2004) can be found at www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/
CSM_coastal_sand_dune.pdf
6 From Interpretation manual of EU habitats
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/2007_07_im.pdf
7 See http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H2160
8 See http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/sac.asp?EUcode=UK0030270

7
 The Habitats Directive, under Article 17 (information), has a requirement for Member States to report
on the condition of habitats and species at six-yearly intervals. The UK submitted its second report
under Article 17 to the European Commission in 2008. 9 This included an assessment of the current
conservation status for Habitat H2160 - Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides in the UK (see Chapter
4).

So, in the UK, the adoption of the EU Habitats Directive, has created a situation where the sea
buckthorn scrub community is now recognised as a component of the native vegetation (in Eastern
England).This adds an interesting dimension to discussions on future approaches to the conservation
and management of the species in the UK.

9 Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2007 Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats Direc-
tive from January 2001 to December 2006. Peterborough: JNCC. www.jncc.gov.uk/article17

8
3 Sea buckthorn in the UK: a review

Paul Rooney

Introduction
Hippophaë rhamnoides L. Sea Buckthorn (Elaeagnaceae) is a Eurasian, woody, dioecious, wind
pollinated, much branched thorny shrub with drupe-like orange or yellow fruit and seed that are
mostly dispersed by birds. It occurs in a range extending from the Atlantic coasts of Europe across to
northwestern China. Sea buckthorn was introduced from Russia to the Canadian prairies in the 1930s
(Li and Beveridge, 2003). In Europe it has a highly fragmented distribution and is largely confined to
the coast, with some inland exceptions along rivers and sub-alpine areas. Sea buckthorn occurs as a
coastal species in north-west Europe along the Atlantic and North Sea coasts from Norway to northern
France. In the UK it is found at scattered coastal localities and has been planted both inland and at
coastal sites.10 In 2009 the trials began for commercial sea buckthorn farming in the UK.11

Pollen Record
The pollen record suggests that sea buckthorn was widespread in Britain on late and early postglacial
raw soils in Britain. Bartish et al. (2006) describe how reforestation in the early Holocene restricted
populations to coastal habitats in northern Europe. Sea buckthorn is not tolerant of shade.

Intriguingly, Bartish et al. (2006) suggest two expansions for Continental populations of sea buckthorn
in historic times at c.4200 and c.1800 years ago. These spread from central Europe into Denmark
and Scandinavia respectively. They speculate that these most recent periods of expansion followed
the path of human forest clearances along coastal corridors, and identify that more work is required
to firmly establish if this human impact replaced climate change as a major driving force for the latest
expansion(s) of sea buckthorn in northern Europe.

Current Status
Rogers (1961) and Pearson and Rogers (1962) consider sea buckthorn to be native on dunes on
the coast of east and south-east England. They describe it as planted and thoroughly naturalized on
dunes elsewhere in Britain. However, they offer no evidence to support their claims for the native,
or otherwise, status of sea buckthorn yet it seems that subsequent conservation management value
judgments for this species and its associated habitat in Britain rely heavily on these claims. Preston et
al. (2002) describe sea buckthorn as being native, and go further to describe it is as native in Britain
only in coastal habitats. They provide a map to further illustrate its distribution and status.

Dargie (2002) considers sea buckthorn scrub to be native on British dunes only on parts of the east
coast, from East Sussex (Dungeness) to Dunbar in East Lothian (Groves, 1958, Perring and Walters,
1962, Ward, 1972, Ainsworth, 1994). Bacon (2003) identifies that the provenance of sea buckthorn
in Sussex is contested, but agrees that it occurs ‘naturally’ on the east and south east coasts from
Kent to Scotland. There seems to be agreement that it is introduced on the north western coasts of
England and scattered west coast sites. Therefore, in Britain sea buckthorn is described as native and
introduced. Bacon (2003) describes it as not present in Ireland as a native species, but being present
as an introduction.

10 The current range of sea buckthorn based on records can be accessed through the BSBI hectad mapping scheme http://www.
bsbimaps.org.uk/atlas/main.php
11 Trial plots of sea buckthorn varieties from Germany and Finland were established at Devereux Farm on the Essex Coast. The story
can be followed at http://www.onthewildsideproducts.co.uk/development_news.html

9
 Baker (1996) highlights the role of birds in the distribution and spread of sea buckthorn by voiding seed
at a distance from the fruiting bush. Baker (1996) also cites the work of Gillham (1987) noting that
seeds voided by birds are six times more likely to germinate than seeds that have not passed through
the gut of a bird. The role and importance of birds in spreading sea buckthorn within and between sites
deserves greater attention.

Description as Scrub
Scrub is difficult to define (Bacon, 2003). It is often a transitional stage from one seral stage to another,
while some scrub communities may be part of a climax vegetation type. Scrub in general terms is a
valuable conservation feature and an important part of several UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitats
and EU Habitats Directive Annex I habitats.

Dunes with sea buckthorn comprise scrub vegetation on more-or-less stable sand dunes in which sea
buckthorn is abundant. The shrub may either form dense thickets, with sparse nitrophilous associates
such as common nettle Urtica dioica, or occur as more scattered bushes interspersed with various
grasses, typically marram Ammophila arenaria and red fescue Festuca rubra, and associated herbs
of dune grassland. In terms of phytosociological associations, sea buckthorn scrub is described in
the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) as SD 18 Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub (Rodwell,
2000). Dargie (2002) in an ecological assessment of sea buckthorn considers that the detailed ecology
of sea buckthorn is not well known.

The Sand Dune Survey of Great Britain 1987-1990 (Dargie, 1993, 1995; Radley, 1994) recorded 372
ha of sea buckthorn habitat in England. This work notes that most stands of the habitat result from
introductions. Bacon (2003) and Mortimer et al. (2000) comment that it is difficult to accurately assess
the distribution of scrub for a number of reasons including unclear boundaries and an inability of
remote sensing techniques to effectively define or classify it. They also note that the distribution of
scrub can only partially be determined from site designation information and from National Vegetation
Classification community data. As such, the Sand Dune Survey of Great Britain is highly likely to be
inaccurate in terms of assessing the extent of sea buckthorn scrub.

Dargie (2002) considers the extent and distribution of sea buckthorn dune scrub resulting from the
NVC mapping for the Sand Dune Survey of Great Britain. He argues that the results from this survey
strongly suggest that sea buckthorn dune scrub is not a serious threat at a national scale (based on
its extent being less than 5% of the overall dune resource) as long as management employs removal
or control methods.

Expansion of Sea Buckthorn

There has been a widespread expansion of sea buckthorn on British dunes since the 1950s due to
a reduction of grazing pressure from rabbits. This was a consequence of the effects of the disease
myxomatosis on the rabbit populations. Grazing pressure by rabbits checked the growth and expansion
of sea buckthorn. As this pressure was relaxed it was possible for scrub and rank vegetation communities
to develop. In addition to invasion of habitats, sea buckthorn has nitrogen fixing abilities which enrich
the soil.

Sea buckthorn is usually considered a serious threat for many dune systems due to its invasive nature,
especially on the west coast of Britain where it is thought to be introduced and is therefore treated
as a non-native species (Bacon, 2003). However, a comparatively small number of studies have been
made of the expansion history of sea buckthorn in only a few sites. Dargie (2002) comments that
studies on the expansion of sea buckthorn completed on sites such as Spurn Head, Merthyr Mawr
and Portstewart have not been drawn together. All show rapid expansion in the 1950s and 1960s
probably relating to decline in rabbit numbers post myxomatosis. For several important dune systems
the situation of sea buckthorn expansion is not written up.

10
Perception of the expansion problem
The British and Irish literature for this plant usually treats it as an aggressive invasive alien on coastal
dunes viewing it as a problem rather than an asset. Even within its ‘natural’ distribution in Great
Britain, sea buckthorn is often treated as a conservation problem. However, it is also treated as an
important (and desirable) part of the dune habitats on the east coast.

Sea buckthorn scrub is a widespread habitat type in the neighbouring dune systems of north France,
Belgium and the Netherlands. For example, along the central mainland coast of the Netherlands, in the
Amsterdam area, the EU habitat type ‘Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides’ is well represented. It is a
valuable component of the overall habitat mosaic and is itself threatened by the spread of the invasive
alien species Bird Cherry Prunus serotina.

However, in the southern Netherlands, Dutch Wadden Sea islands, Belgium and northern France sea
buckthorn scrub can be invasive especially in young primary and secondary dune slacks. Its spread has
been addressed by management activity including mowing, grazing and turf-stripping (Houston 2008a,
2008b). On the Belgian nature reserve of De Westhoek, for example, the management approach is a
combination of ‘pattern management’ which actively controls vegetation and ‘process management’
which allows a more natural transition from fixed dune, through scrub to woodland.

It is worthy of note that there have recently begun significant changes in views in Britain regarding
the ecological value of scrub. These changes may move the perception of sea buckthorn as a problem
species in the British context.

Succession
It is possible that (most?) British stands of sea buckthorn post 1950 expansion are very young and have
therefore not had the time to mature and develop into a sea buckthorn landscape type as on some of the
sites on the Continent. This should be considered in the context of much British vegetation as Rodwell
(2000) comments that our stands of sea buckthorn are “too young for us to know what the end product
of….succession will be”. Dargie (2002) argues that there is good evidence that British stands lack the
range of variation found on the Continent – especially absence of wet ground types and evidence of
transitions to woodland vegetation. This may be a consequence of their relative immaturity.

Tansley (1965) states that the establishment, history and fate of dune scrub have not been closely
studied. Rodwell (2000) argues that it is possible that sea buckthorn on dunes may progress to
Carpinion woodland. Rodwell (2000) concurs with Tansley (1965) noting that there is little information
about what the natural succession beyond existing sea buckthorn stands might be. Bacon (2003) and
Mortimer et al. (2000) both state that the classification of scrub for conservation should take account
of the current conservation value of the stand. Importantly they go on to argue that such evaluations
must consider the likely outcome of changes caused by succession. The extent to which contemporary
dune managers do this is highly uncertain: Bacon (2003) notes that the amount of published work on
scrub management is small.

Management Responses
In an early response to concerns about the expansion and potential impacts of sea buckthorn on dune
habitats, the ‘Hippophaë Study Group’ was convened by The Nature Conservancy (Ranwell, 1972).
This group brought together the then current understanding of the biology of sea buckthorn in Britain,
attempted to provide a balanced view on the conservation value of the species especially in relation
to the dune habitats, and made some specific management policy recommendations. In drafting the
report a survey of the status and management actions undertaken at grade 1 sites (National Nature
Reserves) in Britain was conducted around 1970. The final report proposed the following management
strategies for sea buckthorn.

• Maintain zero Hippophaë population of any sites currently free from Hippophaë by uprooting
seedlings as they are found

11
 • Where establishment is at an early stage, attempt to eliminate Hippophaë
• Where Hippophaë is well established, control so as to maintain habitat diversity (but allowing a
proportion of the stands to develop naturally to maturity)

The survey was repeated for the same sites in the early 1980s by Dr. Pat Doody of the Chief Scientist’s
staff in the Nature Conservancy Council. The results of this survey have not been published, but
have recently been compiled and summarized by Paul Rooney of Liverpool Hope University with the
intention of repeating the survey and publishing the results in full.

During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s a variety of scrub control methods were deployed (successfully and
unsuccessfully) against sea buckthorn at dune sites in Britain. Although this experience is incompletely
recorded, four case studies are presented in Chapter 5 and the result of the major clearance project
at Merthyr-Mawr in terms of the re-establishment of dune vegetation has recently been assessed by
Richards and Burningham (2011).

According to Dargie (2002) English Nature’s (and now Natural England’s?) thinking on sea buckthorn
seems to be that each stage of scrub maturity (pioneer seedlings, scattered bushes and suckers,
closed canopy, and mature scrub with other woody shrubs) should be represented as a part of each of
the other habitats where it is presently found (mobile dunes, fixed dunes and humid slack). However,
the present overall areas of sea buckthorn scrub may need to be reduced in some of these habitats.

Bacon (2003) sets out a range of five basic scrub management operations. It may be possible to apply
these to sea buckthorn and it would inform debate if we understood which of the following were being
pursued at each site where sea buckthorn is present:

1. enhancement – increase extent

2. enhancement – increase quality
3. maintenance
4. reduction
5. eradication

Considering options 4 and 5 as objectives both at a site, regional and national scale it should be noted
that they may be difficult to achieve due to the significant amount of resources required.

Conclusion
On British coastal dunes sea buckthorn is both valued as an EU habitat type, and at the same time
it is perceived as a conservation management problem creating a resource demanding dilemma for
decision makers. It is recognized that the place in succession to dune woodland occupied by sea
buckthorn on British dunes is not well understood. The species is a relatively new ‘problem’ for British
conservationists. Whilst it generally forms a component of the dune habitat mosaic on the Continent
it can also prove to be invasive, especially in slack habitats.

Sea buckthorn on coastal dunes epitomises a host of challenging research (and ethical?) problems in
that the management decisions taken in relation to this species and its associated dune habitat require
evaluation of their relative intrinsic value and degree of naturalness.

It may be argued that sea buckthorn is ‘natural’, and where it is not it is at least fully ‘naturalised,’
across most of its occurrence on the British coast. This may have implications for site designation and
conservation management practices.

12
4 Conservation of the EU Habitat Type
Graham Weaver and John Houston
Introduction
Coastal dunes with sea buckthorn have now been recognized by the UK Government as a habitat
of European nature conservation importance. The EU Annex I habitat H2160 dunes with Hippophae
rhamnoides has been identified as a ‘primary reason’ for the selection of the Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe
Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC, as a ‘qualifying feature’ (but not a primary reason for site selection)
for the Humber Estuary SAC and it is noted as present in a further 11 SACs 12 in the UK including west
coast dune systems. The EU habitat category corresponds with the UK NVC type SD18 Hippophae
rhamnoides dune scrub.13

The only significant site in the UK is the Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC.14
The site description states that “the site supports a good example of dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides
in the main part of its natural range in the UK. The habitat develops on dune areas and is present in a
range of successional stages from early colonisation to mature scrub associated with other species such
as elder Sambucus nigra, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and ivy Hedera helix, typically associated
with an understorey of ruderal species. These stands of scrub are important for both migratory and
breeding birds”.

Figure 2: Information on the accepted native distribution of Hippophae rhamnoides in the UK and the SACs
where the species is noted. Source © JNCC

Key to SAC interest features:

Grade A is an ‘outstanding example of the feature in a European context’
Grade B is an ’excellent example of the feature, significantly above the threshold for SSSI/ASSI notification but
of somewhat lower value than a grade A site’
Grade C is an example of the feature of at least national importance but not significantly above this. These
features are not the primary reason for SACs being selected.
Grade D is for features of below SSSI quality occurring on SACs. These are non-qualifying features (“non-
significant presence”) but this is not a formal global grade.

12 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H2160
13 However, only examples of this NVC community within the natural range of Hippophae rhamnoides in the UK are included in this
definition
14 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/sac.asp?EUcode=UK0030270

13
 The UK Government has to draw up plans to ensure the conservation of the EU habitat type (to
achieve/maintain favourable conservation status) and also to report on the conservation status of the
habitat through the six-yearly Article 17 reports to the European Commission. The information below
is drawn largely from the JNCC website, the conservation status assessment for H2160: dunes with
Hippophae rhamnoides and draft guidance (Natural England, unpublished) for dune grassland and
Hippophae rhamnoides scrub.

Current knowledge on the status and distribution of sea buckthorn scrub in the UK is summarised in
the second report by the United Kingdom under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive prepared by the
JNCC and the UK statutory agencies Coastal Lead Coordination Network.15 The report (JNCC, 2007)
raises a number of issues regarding both conservation (mainly within its native range) and control
(mainly outside its native range) of the species.

Conservation status assessment: the Article 17 report

The JNCC Article 17 report (JNCC, 2007)provides information on range, area, current condition and
future prospects for the European habitat in the UK.

The report concludes that “the native range of sea buckthorn has remained stable for at least 100
years whilst, through planting over a longer period, it has become widespread around much of the UK
coast”. See Figure 1.

The JNCC report only recognises the species as native to England and gives its total native extent at
235 ha (from Sand Dune Survey of Great Britain). The total area of habitat in England, Scotland and
Wales is given as 644 ha so there is more sea buckthorn outside its native range than within it.

Between 1950 and 2006 the trend in the area covered was increasing as a result of natural expansion.
The reason given repeats the view of several authors that until the 1950s sea buckthorn, even where
introduced, was held in check, probably by intensive rabbit grazing. Following myxomatosis in the mid-
1950s, sea buckthorn has greatly expanded on many sites, both within and outside the native range
and where control measures are not in place, it continues to spread.

Over the last 25 years, substantial effort has been expended in containing and reducing the area of
sea buckthorn (Chapter 5) both within and outside its native range. However, in spite of control and
succession to woodland, there is still a considerably larger area of ‘Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides’
than there was in the early 1950s, with no reduction in area since 1994.

The JNCC report has set the measured area of 235 ha as the ‘favourable reference area’ for the UK.
This is considerably larger than the area in the early 1950s and with no reduction in area since 1994. It
is clear, however, that the actual extent of sea buckthorn scrub across all sites will exceed this target
(unless a significant control programme is initiated).

In terms of meeting the obligations of the Habitats Directive the focus for appropriate habitat
management is on the Saltfleetby- Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC. At this site a
provisional objective has been set for the habitat type Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides to be about
30% of the overall dry dune area and to achieve this there will need to be some clearance of sea
buckthorn scrub (see Chapter 5).

However, the JNCC report goes on to suggest that on other sites within its native range there may
be scope for some expansion, arguing that “although this may prove controversial, it is currently only
present in small and isolated patches on most sites within its native range outside of Lincolnshire”. The
report also concludes that “it is extremely unlikely that sea buckthorn will be eradicated from all the
sites that it has been introduced to outside its current native range. Indeed, on a number of sites it is
likely to become an accepted part of the dune vegetation, rather than an unwelcome lodger”.

15 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/Article17/FCS2007-H2160-audit-Final.pdf

14
The EU habitat type ‘dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides’ can be affected by pressures, leading to loss
of habitat extent. These include;
• Deliberate clearance (by mowing, cutting and grubbing up) driven by objectives to conserve open
dune habitats/remove invasive species
• A reduction in mobile dune conditions leading to an increase in fixed dune grassland at the expense
of plants of semi-fixed habitats
• The succession to mixed scrub and woodland, shading out sea buckthorn scrub
• A potential negative impact of atmospheric pollution (the habitat is considered ‘potentially
sensitive’)

Although climate change is considered a major threat to the future condition of the habitat in the long
term there is a high degree of uncertainty in all models.

The pressures are not considered ‘significant’ and the overall conclusion of the Article 17 assessment,
based on the results of condition monitoring, is that the UK resource of sea buckthorn habitat is
‘favourable’. However, the report notes that there is a predominance of early and mid successional
stages of the habitat with limited examples of mature stands.

Future prospects for the EU Habitat

Considering future prospects for the habitat the JNCC report states that “although still controversial,
attitudes within the nature conservation community towards scrub are in the process of changing
– acknowledging it as a habitat in its own right, and not simply as a problem for other more open
habitats. Reassessment of the place of scrub and woodland on dunes is less advanced but it is likely
that, in the future, scrub and woodland will be more actively retained on dunes, both within and outside
the native range of sea buckthorn”.

The east coast dune systems are relatively narrow and there are not many opportunities for the
development of new areas of scrub. One consequence is that the large pulse of sea buckthorn scrub
that has developed over 50 years will mature but will not be followed by an equivalent area of young
scrub. There is therefore perhaps more opportunity on west coast dune systems to allow a range of
age classes to develop.

The future prospects for the habitat in the UK are also considered to be favourable: i.e. its range
and area are stable or increasing and more than 95% of the habitat area is likely to be in favourable
condition in 12-15 years.

Setting Conservation Objectives

Now that ‘Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides’ is a recognised habitat in England there is an opportunity
to develop conservation objectives and monitor habitat quality through the Common Standards
Monitoring approach (currently dune scrub seems to fall between guidance for coastal sand dunes and
woodlands). At key sites the objective is to accommodate a full representation of sea buckthorn scrub
types – ranging from colonising young buckthorn in mobile/semi-fixed dunes, through to senescent sea
buckthorn in mixed-species mature scrub.

Because of the mosaic of habitats which form a dune system there will be a need to find a balance
between EU habitat types, in particular the balance between sea buckthorn scrub and the European
habitats H2120 ‘Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes)’ and H2130
‘Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes)’.

Natural England coastal ecologists have considered the need to offer guidance for setting Conservation
Objectives for dunes with a mosaic of grassland and scrub habitats. The following approach is
suggested:

15
 • Core areas of dune grassland to be retained. The relevant Common Standards Monitoring
(CSM) guidance should be applied to these areas. The current generic target is for scrub/
trees to be no more than occasional or less than 5% cover.

• Core areas of sea buckthorn scrub to be retained. When setting Conservation Objectives for
dunes with sea buckthorn scrub the generic targets set out in the condition assessment for
scrub and wood pasture sites should be used.

• Areas where it is acceptable (or even desirable) for there to be some fluctuation over time of
the boundaries between the grassland and sea buckthorn scrub. This may be where a mosaic
of grassland and sea buckthorn scrub occurs, or it may be where there is a long ‘front’ between
the two.
Table 1: Suggested Favourable Condition table for ‘Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides’

ATTRIBUTE MEASURE TARGET COMMENT

Extent Area (ha.) of dunes with 30% of dry dune area to be

sea buckthorn; measured covered by sea buckthorn
once every 5 years from scrub.
aerial photos.

Vegetation Relative proportions Maintain at least three It is not yet clear how long structural
succession and of height classes of height classes of sea variety can be maintained in stands of
structure sea buckthorn scrub; buckthorn scrub. sea buckthorn by rotational cutting.
measured once every 5
years from aerial photos,
and measured once every
10 years from sample
surveys.

Relative proportions of Maintain a range of sea It may be easier to cater for the
colonising (<50% cover buckthorn age classes, in “less than 5 years old” category in a
sea buckthorn) and particular “grassland-scrub mosaic” feature.
established (>50% cover 30% of scrub area being in
sea buckthorn) scrub; colonising stage (SD18a),
measured once every 5 and
years from aerial photos, 10% of scrub less than 5
and measured once every years old and 20% more
10 years from sample than 20 years old.
surveys.
Also allow 5% of sea This 5% area needs to be taken
buckthorn scrub to account of when setting a woodland
develop into dune feature extent figure (if any).
woodland.

Absence of non- Relative proportion of non- Less than 5% cover of non-

native flora native trees and shrubs; native trees and shrubs.
measured once every 5
years from aerial photos,
and measured once every
10 years from full survey.

An overall target for the protected site might therefore be for a minimum of 30% grassland, a minimum
of 30% Hippophae scrub and the balance (40%) being either habitat or a mixture of them. There can be
considerable flexibility in the balance between the two main habitat types without affecting the overall
condition assessment.

There is interest in developing remote sensing techniques for monitoring dune habitats including dune
scrub. The value of remote sensing has been assessed in a study of alien and invasive woody species
on the Dutch Wadden Sea island of Vlieland (Hantson et al. 2010)

16
5 Management case studies

Edited by John Houston

The chapter is based on the workshop contributions of Claire Weaver (Natural England), Kev Wilson
(Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust), Simon Cooter (Natural England), Duncan Ludlow (Countryside Council
for Wales) and Duncan Priddle (East Lothian Council).

Several sites in the UK have undertaken long-term approaches to eradication, control and management
of sea buckthorn scrub. These sites include Braunton Burrows, Ainsdale Sand Dunes, Saltfleetby-
Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point in England, Portstewart and Murlough Dunes in Northern
Ireland, the East Lothian coast in Scotland and Merthyr Mawr and Kenfig in Wales.

As Rooney (chapter 3) shows the ‘traditional’ managers’ attitude to sea buckthorn in the 1970s and
1980s was that it was a ‘thorny problem’ which required attention. Thus the BTCV practical handbooks
(BTCV 1979 pp. 99-105, BTCV 1986 pp. 89-93) give detailed information on control methods including
hand cutting, grubbing-up, burning, using herbicides and mowing. The second edition of the handbook
includes a section on treatment after clearance, an issue discussed at the workshop and by Richards
and Burningham (2011).

The BTCV guidance was based largely on the report of the Hippophaë Study Group (Ranwell 1972)
and reports of practical experience at Braunton Burrows (Venner 1971) and Murlough (Ellis 1983).
Experience on the Sefton Coast, Merseyside, in the early 1990s (Rooney, 1998) also supported the
development of management practice. As Rooney (chapter 3) notes there are changing attitudes to
the place of scrub on dune sites arising out of a better understanding of the conservation value of
scrub (especially Bacon 2003) and the challenge of the Habitats Directive to identify sites in the UK
where sea buckthorn is a primary reason for conservation.

Bacon (2003 pp. 4/153-156) summarises management techniques for sea buckthorn scrub by grazing,
cutting and herbicide application. Even on sites such as Gibraltar Point where sea buckthorn is native
(case study in Bacon 2003) management is required to achieve a balance between scrub communities
and open communities.

Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC

The Special Area of Conservation includes Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point
National Nature Reserves and management is guided by conservation objectives and the specific site
management plans.

In terms of overall objectives Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC is notified for
its fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (`grey dunes`), dunes with sea buckthorn, humid dune
slacks and embryonic shifting dunes. The Special Area of Conservation is the UK’s premier site for the
conservation of sea buckthorn scrub (some 200ha) within the framework of the EU Habitats Directive.
Natural England has responsibility for setting the objectives and for developing management practice
which will conserve the habitat.

The most vigorous stands of sea buckthorn are mainly found in the more mobile yellow dune area
(Cooter 2008). From here it spreads mainly by suckering, and to a lesser degree through seed dispersal,
into the grey dunes inland and to the embryonic dunes seaward. On the grey dunes the sea buckthorn
forms a mixed dune scrub with hawthorn Crateagus monogyna, wild privet Ligustrum vulgare and elder
Sambucus nigra. It is succeeded by a more mature scrub and then ash Fraxinus excelsior and sycamore
Acer pseudoplatanus woodland. Without management intervention the other interest features of the
site would be smothered by scrub.

17
 The objectives in relation to dune scrub for the SAC are:
• Rotational coppice of closed-canopy stands to diversify age structure (applied to 75-80% of scrub)
at both sites;
• Removal of 9ha Hippophae at Gibraltar Point, mainly by coppicing;
• Maintain key areas of other habitat free from Hippophae e.g. fixed dune at both sites;
• Retain oldest stands and allow to senescence and continued scrub succession at both sites;
• Maintain mobile foredune ridges clear of Hippophae at both sites.

The statutory advisers responsible for setting conservation objectives for the sea buckthorn scrub in
England will have to consider the following questions;
• How to diversify the sea buckthorn stands and keep enough of the scrub ‘middle aged’?
• If coppicing does not work would grazing be the answer?
• What to do about the low quantity of pioneer sea buckthorn stands on these narrow, stable dune
systems?
• How to balance invading buckthorn scrub with the need for some shifting Ammophila dune?

Gibraltar Point National Nature Reserve

Gibraltar Point NNR is a nationally important site for sand dunes, dune slacks, sand flats and mud flats.
The reserve consists of a series of almost parallel dune ridges separated by salt marsh and dividing the
site into East Dunes and West Dunes. The most inland dunes are probably 500 years old and support
calcareous dry dune grassland. Sea buckthorn scrub is also of conservation importance (case study
in Bacon 2003) but is controlled to protect dry grassland and dune slack habitats. The overall aim of
management is to create a balance between scrub and grassland habitats through scrub control and
grazing.

The dune scrub with sea buckthorn at Gibraltar Point also includes elder, privet, dog rose Rosa canina
and hawthorn. Succession within dune slacks is shown by sallow Salix caprea in limited areas and on
drier dunes succession into maritime woodland is shown by sycamore. Management aims to reduce
the total extent of sea buckthorn scrub to coverage similar to that of the early 1960s, by recognising
that scrub needs to be controlled where it threatens other habitats including yellow dune, grey dune
and dune slack. In the mid-1960s the first common bird census showed that the open scrub mosaic
was a particularly rich habitat for breeding birds, with some of the densest populations ever recorded.
The total area of sea buckthorn scrub is to be reduced from 62% of the dry dunes to 25-30% of the dry
dunes to restore open dune grassland communities. This will entail clearing c. 10 ha. About 5% of the
sea buckthorn scrub will be allowed to develop into dune woodland.

One of the targets is to maintain a representative mix of age classes of scrub including young (<5 years
old) and mature (>20 years old). The target on the 25-30% of the dunes covered in scrub is for c. 30%
open scrub mosaic, 30% dense middle-aged growth and 30% senescent growth. Some of the factors
which determine the structure and spread of sea buckthorn scrub (as identified in the NNR management
plan) are;
• Former sheep grazing had ceased by the 1920s and the re-introduction of sheep grazing from
the mid-1980s has helped to suppress colonising scrub on the grey dunes but at current levels it
has not eradicated colonising growth. Site managers may consider heavier grazing with Hebridean
sheep.
• Sea buckthorn colonisation appears to be suppressed by intensive rabbit grazing: young shoots
are stripped of leaf buds in the winter. Sea buckthorn colonised extensively following the
outbreaks of myxomatosis in the early 1950s.
• On older dune ridges there are areas of senescing elder and sea buckthorn scrub. Where dieback
is extensive sea buckthorn may re-colonise, but the opportunity may be taken by sycamore.
• The dune scrub communities on the East Dunes can be completely swamped by vigorous growth
of Clematis vitalba (Old Man’s Beard).

18
The strong presence of clematis is interesting. It is not considered to be an alien species but occurs
more on the East Dunes where it is presumed to be established through bird droppings from migrant
birds from the near Continent. Dargie (2002) considers that it is a valid component of native scrub on
the Continent. It is the host plant for four uncommon species of moth including Petty Chalk Carpet
Melanthia procellata and Small Waved Umber Horisme vitalbata. It is also highly susceptible to grazing
by Hebridean sheep and Dexter cattle that quickly defoliate it in late summer and early autumn.

In 2002 research was commissioned by English Nature to advise on management options. The
recommendations presented by Dargie (2002) have since been modified by Natural England and
Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust but can still be grouped into four regimes:
1. Clearance: To redress the balance of scrub on open grey dune and yellow dune areas.
2. Non-intervention: Several areas of scrub in the southern part of the site were identified for non-
intervention where the mixed dune scrub of sea buckthorn, elder and hawthorn would develop
naturally (except for eradication of non-native species).
3. Scrub-grazing: Livestock grazing would be allowed to influence the scrub structure and develop a
mosaic of scrub and grassland.
4. Coppicing: Blocks of scrub would be coppiced to ground level in both young and old dune systems
to maintain the community and diversity the age range.

Clearance work began first on the West Dunes in the early 1960s by Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust when a
bulldozer was used to create two parallel rides. Other clearance was carried out by the military in 1969
to check for unexploded ordnance and to restore dune grassland. Clearance continued on a smaller
scale on the dunes at the south end of the nature reserve (where access was easiest) and gains in
open habitat here were probably offset to some extent by scrub advancement further north in the dune
system. With better information on vegetation cover in the 2000s a more targeted approach to scrub
clearance was developed.

In the early 1990s areas of grey dunes on the East and West Dunes were cleared of sea buckthorn scrub
by manual techniques (clearing saw or chain saw), linked to an expansion of the grazing programme. The
general policy has been to work out from remaining open areas to push the scrub back. The Lincolnshire
Wildlife Trust has a medium-term programme of scrub clearance set out in the management plan for
Gibraltar Point NNR. Most of the cut material is burned on site avoiding areas of open dune grassland
and using fire pits which are covered with fresh sand after use. As well as problems with re-growth,
weed species such as creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, rosebay willowherb Epilobium angustifolium,
ragwort Senecio jacobaea, spring beauty Claytonia perfoliata and nettle Urtica dioica are all abundant
on the rich soils remaining after clearance. Sea buckthorn re-growth can be sprayed with Timbrel or
weep-wiped with Glyphosphate: good results have been achieved in September. The management of
the ragwort, rosebay willowherb and thistle includes hand pulling (especially ragwort with the lazy-dog
tool), brushcutting (for rosebay willowherb), selective herbicide and grazing.

Experience at Gibraltar Point shows that the amount of work required in the follow-up stage to actual
clearance should not be under-estimated and needs to be built in to project planning. Ideally the enriched
soil layers would be scraped off but the issues of disposal and cost would be too great. Unexploded
ordnance also remains a problem despite Gibraltar Point being given a Land Clearance Certificate
in the late 1960s. In terms of techniques there is a strong argument for uprooting scrub with heavy
machinery which may reduce the amount of follow up work required and may bring up fresh sand to the
surface. Inverting part of the topsoil and exposing fresh sand should provide better conditions for the
re-establishment of dune vegetation.

With non-intervention the older areas of sea buckthorn and elder scrub on the inland ridges may be
gradually replaced by sycamore. The presence of sycamore can lead to a transition from dune scrub to
maritime woodland and this succession is allowed to continue in parts of the West Dunes.

19
 Sheep grazing was practised at Gibraltar Point in the early 20th Century although probably limited to
the southern part of the West Dunes. This had ceased by the 1920s. An extensive grazing regime was
re-established in the West Dunes in the 1980s and expanded to the East Dunes in the 1990s mainly
with Hebridean sheep and Lincoln Red cross and Dexter cattle. The cattle help to create good ‘edge’
habitat between grassland and scrub by pushing through the scrub and breaking bushes and create
good conditions for follow-up grazing by sheep. The Hebridean sheep positively select woody material
as browse and will preferentially graze sea buckthorn. The stock fencing was installed under Higher
Level Stewardship (England agri-environment scheme) capital works programme.

Rabbit grazing appears to suppress the spread of sea buckthorn by stripping young shoots of leaf buds
and bark and by gnawing bark on older growth in hard winters. Sea buckthorn spread from suckers and
possibly through seed following the outbreak of myxomatosis in the 1950s. This spread of scrub may
have contributed to the loss of natterjack toad Epidalia calamita and the brown argus Aricia agestis.

The scrub coppicing programme started in 1995/6 on part of the site known as Measures, involving
the coppicing of c. 0.5 ha /year on a 20 year rotation. In each block, 75% of the scrub is coppiced
with cut material either burnt or used as dead hedging. In some areas re-growth has been browsed by
rabbits unless it is coppiced high. As well as diversifying the canopy structure and rejuvenating scrub
the coppicing also exposes temporary bare ground for about three years before the canopy becomes
established again. In some areas sheep and cattle will have access to coppice blocks to slow the rate
of re-growth.

The management of the Gibraltar Point NNR also has to be taken in the context of the wider dune
system which includes Seacroft Golf Course, where 10ha of scrub was removed in the mid-late 2000s,
and Seacroft Marsh SSSI, which is a non-intervention site owned by East Lindsey District Council.
Although there is a poor floral association with sea buckthorn scrub there are some invertebrates which
are totally dependent on the species. One of these, the micro-moth Gelechia hippophaella was first
described at Gibraltar Point. The larvae of this moth can cause severe defoliation.

Gibraltar Point NNR: hand digging of sea buckthorn suckers © John Houston

The sea buckthorn scrub at Gibraltar Point is particularly noted for its value for wintering, passage and
breeding birds. The dune scrub can support one of the highest densities of nesting birds of any UK habitat:
the dense scrub is favoured by dunnock Punella modularis, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus and linnet
Carduelis cannabina whereas an older scrub with hawthorn is favoured by turtle dove Steptopelia turtur,
yellowhammer Emberiza citronella and long-eared owl Asio otus. The bird observatory, established in
1948, studies the migrant birds including warblers, thrushes, flycatchers and finches.

The management plan for Gibraltar Point NNR notes that fire can have a catastrophic effect on dune
scrub. Where this does happen the management response is likely to accept a change towards dune
grassland.

20
Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes National Nature Reserve

Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes NNR is a nationally important site stretching 8km along the north-
east Lincolnshire coast, which includes flats, dunes, salt and freshwater marsh which together support
an exceptionally rich flora and fauna. Dunes first began to form in this area in the 13th Century and the
coast has continued to accrete. The 552ha National Nature Reserve now includes 175ha of dunes of
which 80ha are dominated by dune scrub. In the absence of grazing the dunes become dominated by
scrub of sea buckthorn, hawthorn, wild privet and elder, all frequented by migrant birds. Dune scrub is
important for nesting dunnock, wren Troglodytes troglodytes, whitethroat Sylvia communis, blackcap
Sylvia atricapilla and willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus. In winter months the berries, along with
those of hawthorn and elder, provide food for flocks of fieldfare Turdus pilaris and redwing Turdus
iliacus.

At Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes NNR there was a significant increase in scrub from 25ha on 125
ha in 1953 to 80ha on 175ha in 2001. Although this is partly due to natural succession it increased in
pace in the 1950s following the decline of the rabbit population. The site has been maintained at the
2001 level by autumn grazing on grey dunes, coppicing of scrub on yellow dunes and the control of
scrub on the fore-dunes (Cooter 2009).

Saltfleetby 1953: 25ha of scrub on 125 ha © Natural England

Saltfleetby 2001: 80ha of scrub on 175ha © Natural England

Cooter (2009) reports that the reasons for the spread of sea buckthorn scrub might include natural
factors such as dune accretion, the medium-fine nature of the sand, high calcium content of the sand,
a lack of root-destroying nematodes and the location of the site which faces east but has a prevailing
westerly wind.

Other reasons for the present distribution of scrub, linked to management decisions and practice,
might include the cessation of grazing in the 1930s, the loss of rabbits in the 1950s, the clearance
of scrub for the re-establishment of grazing from 1978 onwards and the policy of managing for 50%
grassland and 50% scrub.

21
 1979: volunteers cutting Sea Buckthorn scrub at Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe NNR © Natural England

The programme of coppicing, which began in 1990, did not achieve the range of succession states of
sea buckthorn scrub as envisaged. The plants were not taken back to a pioneer stage but to a coppiced
root stock with vigorous growth (Cooter 2009). This had the effect of producing even-aged blocks of
dense sea buckthorn scrub rather than a mosaic of pioneer scrub. To promote early stage succession,
sea buckthorn clearance needs to be followed by grazing to maintain a more varied structure.

The following target has been proposed:

Core area of permanent grassland: 50%

Core area of permanent scrub: 25%
Grassland/scrub mosaic: 25% (ranging from 33%-66% scrub cover)

The grassland scrub mosaic is to be maintained by grazing/browsing following successful trials using
all-year grazing with Highland cattle on cleared areas and the effective browsing of Hebridean sheep
on young sea buckthorn plants.

The target is to clear 17ha of scrub from Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes NNR. The areas identified
take into account the existing structure of the scrub, the specific target to remove the invasive Clematis
vitalba, ease of follow up management and public access and use. The beginning of the five year scrub
management plan is reported by Cooter (2009).

The clearance involves the use of heavy machinery to grub up sea buckthorn. This has been costed at
£5,000/ha. The re-growth is being controlled using the herbicide Timbrel16, applied at 6 litres/ha by
boom sprayer, weed-wipe or knapsack sprayer depending upon the density of re-growth. The wetting
agent Mixture-B is used to increase the uptake of herbicide. The costs for herbicide application were
£500/ha. To help the establishment of dune grassland on the cleared dunes, grass cut by forage
harvester (cut and collect) from other areas of grey dune is spread over the cleared areas. Early
results are good and the re-establishment of grassland will be followed up by fencing and grazing. Low
stocking rates will allow a degree of scrub to return to create the desired scrub/grassland mosaic.

The current objectives for management are;

• Varied and dynamic dune structure
• Increase in open yellow dune
• Control of invasive introduced species (especially Clematis vitalba)

16 Timbrel is a selective herbicide containing 667 g/litre (44.3% w.w) triclopyr butoxy ethyl ester. It controls a wide range of woody
weeds while being selective to grass and is also used as a stump treatment.

22
At Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes NNR, it is thought the clematis species was accidentally introduced
to the site through garden waste disposal. It has spread rapidly through the sea buckthorn scrub and
in areas can completely shade out and kill the sea buckthorn. As Clematis vitalba can be a component
of dune scrub without becoming rampant managers are not yet sure how to tackle this problem which,
for now, seems to be an issue in the UK only on the Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe and Gibraltar Point
SAC17.

Spread of Clematis vitalba at Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes NNR © John Houston

To achieve this objective a five-year programme of sea buckthorn management is being implemented to
covert 17.6 ha of permanent scrub to a mosaic of scrub and grassland. Rotational coppicing (practised
since the 1990s), although recommended by the earlier report of Dargie (2002) has been discounted
as it is very expensive and doesn’t always lead to diversity of the scrub community. A more dynamic
approach is being used, using machinery to clear scrub from areas which can be fenced, uprooting
material where possible but minimising damage to the topography. The work is seasonal (avoiding the
main bird breeding period) and designed to require minimal follow up with most areas being maintained
by grazing and browsing.

Scrub management work at Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe NNR© Natural England

17 A network visit to the Dunes du Perroquet in North France in October 2010 saw a very similar situation to that at Saltfleetby-Thed-
dlethorpe NNR. Clematis vitalba was growing up into stands of sea buckthorn and smothering the plant. The managers considered this
to be natural.

23
 A range of heads are used on machinery © Natural England

Follow up work includes fencing, grazing, mowing green hay, herbicide application and control of
weeds. Monitoring is by fixed point photography, aerial photography and through Common Standards
Monitoring.

Merthyr Mawr Warren National Nature Reserve

Merthyr Mawr dunes partly overtop a limestone escarpment making it the site of the highest dunes in
Wales. A single-sex colony of sea buckthorn was first planted towards the back of the dune system in
the 1840s to provide shelter and stabilise the dunes. For a century this worked well, but between 1930
and 1965 plants of the other sex were introduced and this probably triggered the spread of colonies
of scrub (Dargie 1992). By the 1950s the existing stands had begun to spread and coalesce and new
stands started to appear across the dune system. Rapid spread is also linked to the introduction of
myxomatosis in the 1950s. Prior to this the density of rabbits was controlling the spread of the plant
(Dargie 1992).

By 1992 20% of the 365ha warren was covered in sea buckthorn (Dargie 1992). The led to a large-
scale clearance programme linked to the introduction of grazing to some parts of the site.

Table 2: The extent and colony numbers of sea buckthorn at Merthyr Mawr warren (from Dargie 1992)

Air Photo date Extent (ha) Number of colonies

1957 1.52 7
1967 16.5 36
1971 17.52 31
1988 42.28 276
1991 53.79 82

The pattern of scrub invasions in the establishment of discrete circular colonies, probably following
bird dispersal, which then coalesce to form large continuous blocks of dense scrub. Between 1967
and 1971, for example, the extent of scrub cover increased but the number of colonies decreased.
Similarly after an explosion of colonies shown on the 1988 aerial photograph (2726 colonies) these
had coalesced to 82 by 1991. Colonies expand to meet each other and then coalesce. Further mapping
(Richards and Burningham, 2010) estimates the maximum extent of sea buckthorn scrub at 60.9 ha in
1996.

Dargie (1992) gave estimates of possible increases in sea buckthorn scrub of c. 68ha by 1995 and over
110ha by 2000-2003.

24
 Merthyr Mawr warren 1948 © CCW Merthyr Mawr warren 2006 © CCW

A clearance programme was initiated in 1996 by which time c.60 ha of the 360 ha site was sea buckthorn
scrub. Only 30ha of mobile Ammophila dunes were present and the SD18a community was only 4-7ha.
Of high priority for clearance were the dune slack areas.

Management work (left) and spread of ragwort Senecio jacobaea on cleared areas (right) © CCW

Treatment included extraction using heavy machinery. A large weed rake was found to be effective
for grubbing up roots. Other treatments included hand (chain saw) cutting and stump treatment with
herbicide and also foliar spraying with Roundup.18 Clearance work between 1996 and 2006 reduced
the total area of scrub to 23.5ha (Richards and Burningham, 2011).

Following clearance there were concerns about the presence of ruderal vegetation including ragwort,
rosebay willowherb and Himalayan balsam Impatiens glanulifera. The ragwort was seen as a particular
problem. The study by Richards and Burningham (2011) shows that clearance alone is not enough to
recover dune plant communities; the exposed bare sandy soils encourage the spread of ruderal species
creating a secondary problem. The authors recommend that different clearance methods should be
evaluated, both in terms of their effectiveness of scrub control and in reducing the secondary problem
of invasion by ruderal species.

Follow up has included the introduction of cattle to maximise diversity through grazing and browsing.
The cattle are mainly Hereford crosses with one or two Highland cattle. Monitoring is by fixed point
photography, aerial photography and field surveys two years after clearance then every five years.

18 Roundup is a total weed control with active ingredient 450g/l glyphosphate.

25
 East Lothian Council
Sea buckthorn scrub is a feature of the coastal dunes in East Lothian. Though long-established in
the area, current opinion is that it is not native to the county. East Lothian Council has over 30 years
experience of working with sea buckthorn. Its current ‘vision’ for control has the following elements
(East Lothian Council 2010):
• To monitor the distribution, spread and age of sea buckthorn at managed sites
• To reduce and / or eradicate the area of sea buckthorn to restore coastal grassland
• To never plant the species in the foreseeable future
• To contribute towards the development of national policies for the management and control of
sea buckthorn
• To encourage private landowners to manage the species

The criteria used to determine control measures, if desirable, are based on work at Aberlady Bay Local
Nature Reserve (Harrison, 2008) which developed a scoring system to help prioritise work. The criteria
are based on the negative impacts of sea buckthorn (such as size of stands, threats to grassland
habitats, threats to key species and rate of spread) weighed against positive impacts (such as wildlife
value, usefulness for visitor management value and site-specific issues).

Spread of sea buckthorn scrub by suckering at Yellowcraig © East Lothian Council

The reason for the problem of sea buckthorn in East Lothian stems from active suckering from existing
stands; widespread historical planting (especially for coastal erosion control techniques) with ignorance
of the consequences of this work; a lack of effective management of sea buckthorn stands; a possible
influence of climatic amelioration (warmer, wetter winters and summers giving a longer growing season)
and the spread of the plant by birds (frugivory).

The management objective is to contain sea buckthorn to agreed areas within each coastal site owned
or managed by East Lothian Council. This will be achieved by a long-term programme of removal of
sea buckthorn from identified areas, employing a variety of techniques appropriate to each site and
each population stand.

Early management work included hand clearance by lopping and cutting stems to maintain path
networks. Hand digging of young plants and their roots was effective but also labour intensive. For

26
mechanical clearance a tractor (fitted with a back actor digging bucket) was used in the winter months
to clear scrub, supported by chainsaw operators. A chain attachment fitted to the rear of the tractor
also enabled large plants to be uprooted. Cleared material was either burnt on site or used as dead
material in the construction of ‘Dutch fences’ to counter dune erosion. This programme was effective
until the annual work programme was cancelled due to lack of funds. In the following period sea
buckthorn rapidly re-grew in most areas.

More recent control methods (2006-present) still employ a combination of manual and mechanical
treatments. Hand-digging of young plants, to remove the entire plant and root system, is still an
effective method for localised control with little interference to the dune vegetation. These techniques
can be used at the edge of large stands, where the plant is spreading into new habitat, and where the
plant can still be controlled by hand.

For mechanical clearance there was a move away from tractors to tracked machines. A combination
of a tracked forestry mulcher and a 360 degree excavator ‘grabber’ (with a variety of bucket head
attachments) was initially used. The mulcher was effective for ‘breaking into’ large stands and shredding
the woody material but had the disadvantage of leaving debris which enriched the soil and also of
leaving cut stems and root systems which had the potential to regenerate.

More recent management practice therefore favours the use of the grabber, which, by using different
attachments can handle both smaller (c. 1m) and larger (5m+) plants. The grabber can also shake the
uprooted material to return much of the sand.

The grabber was first used in early 2007. Plants were uprooted, stacked in piles, left to dry out, and
burnt in the following autumn. Problems were that the piles trapped windblown sand, affecting the
topography of the area, and also the stacked material could be set alight. The current approach is now
to burn the material as soon as possible, though there is concern over the amount of carbon emissions
generated by this process. It is still possible that some piles in remote areas and where there is little
movement of sand can be left to dry out. This produces a quicker and less smoky fire in the following
autumn / winter.

Two local golf courses, Gullane Golf Club and Archerfield Golf Club, had used chemical treatment as
a means of control and East Lothian Council has also adopted this practice using either a glyphosate-
based product, e.g. Roundup, or Triclopyr emusifiable concentrate based (solvent) herbicides, e.g.
Timbrel and Nu-Shot. Whilst these are effective for killing sea buckthorn, there are some questions
about their use, including the appropriateness of the use of chemicals on unimproved grasslands.
Timbrel, however, is selective and will only kill woody species, and other products can be wiped onto
leaves or painted onto cut stumps. Chemical control appears to be particularly effective on small
plants and re-growth, if carried out in the spring, 12 months after original clearance, and followed up
with an autumn treatment (i.e. 18 months after original removal). Thereafter there is monitoring and
respraying of further regeneration.

In summer 2009, ten sheep were put into areas containing sea buckthorn plants at Aberlady Bay Local
Nature Reserve to assess their effectiveness in controlling the species. Early indications showed that
the sheep preferentially grazed the young sea buckthorn shoots. The experiment would suggest that
it is best to clear fencable areas of scrub prior to introducing stock

27
 Ideally, grazing would be able to maintain the mosaic of grassland and scrub and other animals, such
as Dexter cattle, may be assessed for their grazing potential.

In summary, the methods employed by East Lothian Council include;

• Manual removal by digging, pulling (small areas only), lopping and cutting (where aim is to
provide a path through a stand)
• Stump wiping /spraying- using herbicides such as Nu-shot, Timbrel or Roundup
• Mulching, only used to create the initial cleared area
• Using machinery for grabbing, the preferred technique for clearing larger plants. Different head
units, such as tines or stone buckets, can be selected according to the age of the plants/stand,
the size of area to cover and the effect upon the underlying topography.

Monitoring of the results of work is carried out through field observations by rangers, using marker posts
to delineate hard edges, vegetation (quadrat) surveys, individual plant surveys (growth/regeneration
of stumps), fixed-point photography (ground) annually at each site, aerial photography every 5 years
and annual records of activity.

Tracked forestry mulcher, piloted in 2007

360 degree grabber with long tines for uprooting plants and roots
Alternate grabber head unit piloted for removal of smaller plants
Stone bucket head piloted in attempt to remove more of the root system
All © East Lothian Council

28
Some of the issues which arise from the work were what to do with the cuttings from the work,
the impact of mechanical grabs on the underlying topography, the season for the work (limited to
September-February), public reaction to the use of herbicides, timing of herbicide application and
whether the work would encourage the spread of other aggressive non-natives such as pirri-pirri bur
Acaena novae-zelandiae.

Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages of each technique summarised by East Lothian Council.

Technique Advantages Disadvantages

Hand clearance Can remove small suckering plants Laborious/ not effective on mature plants

Little disturbance to other vegetation Reliant upon volunteers being available

Cuttings need to be burnt or removed off-site

Mulcher Quick removal areas of mature scrub Regeneration from roots left in the ground

Clears young plants (c. 1m) in one pass Unknown damage to ground flora during access
to / from areas of operation

Chips material – quicker decomposition? Material into soil -nutrient enrichment

Cannot access remote / difficult locations

Cost

Grabber Removes entire plant/more root system Disposal – burning not especially ‘green’

Used on steeper gradients/ uneven ground Cannot access remote / difficult locations

More selective in operation - better suited Unknown damage to ground flora during access
to work on sensitive areas to / from areas of operation

Piles up plants - avoiding potential for

nutrient enrichment Cost

Different head units can be used to suit

requirements Cannot remove smallest plants

(Potentially) targeted application - leaves (Potentially) other flora may be affected by

Chemical remaining flora unharmed spraying programme

Kills plant and root system Dead plants still need to be dug out and removed

Can access remote locations relatively Longer-term consequences of repeat spraying on

easily natural habitat?

Can be applied to adult and small plants Limited ‘weather window’ for application

Areas need to be cordoned off from the public

(and dogs) during and after treatment

Cost

Grazing Targets regenerating plants and suckers Cannot graze mature plants
(by sheep)

Constant effort provided Daily monitoring of flock required

Effect of droppings / urine on unimproved

No material to be burnt or disposed grassland?

Public interest Not practical on sites with large visitor numbers

Relative cost Set-up costs / infrastructure

Experience found that prices for the hire of the forestry mulcher and the 360 excavator/grabber varied
enormously: from 2007-2009 contractors fees varied from £1,000 / day to £250 / day depending on
competition for work. In 2010 the prices were c. £300 / day. Much of the work has been completed
through grants from Scottish Natural Heritage.

29
 With more pressure on finances East Lothian Council will perhaps have to seek a market for sea
buckthorn to help support the annual programme of work. For example, the Council was approached
by a wild food supplier asking permission to harvest the berries to prepare jelly and cordial products
for restaurants and specialist food shops in Edinburgh. The Council will have to balance the demand
for the wild produce, with its potential income, against the value of berries for wildlife. Also cut plant
material may have a market as a fuel although it may be difficult sourcing interested contractors.
However, it might make economic sense to allow contractors to remove sea buckthorn annually at no
cost to the Council, the contractors making their profit from sales.

30
 Table 4: Summary of case studies (see http://www.barger.science.ru.nl/life/download/2004/promme.pdf for further information on PROMME

Site Problem Reasons Objective Management Monitoring Execution

East Lothian Spread of sea buckthorn Active suckering by adult Contain (eradicate) sea Hand- digging, pulling, Field observations Work started winter 2006
on coastal dune plants buckthorn to agreed areas lopping and cutting Marker posts Issues:
grasslands Widespread planting achieved by a long-term Stump wiping /spraying- Fixed-point photography Disposal of woody debris?
(especially for coastal programme of removal with herbicides. Aerial photography Impact on topography? Season (
erosion control techniques) of sea buckthorn from Mulching to create the Annual reports September-February)
Lack of effective identified areas, employing initial cleared area Public reaction to use of herbicides?
management of sea a variety of techniques Grabbing using machinery Spread of non-natives? Public
buckthorn appropriate to each site fitted with a variety of head outcry?
Possible influence of and each population stand units including tines and
climatic amelioration stone buckets
Spread of the plant by
birds

Merthyr Mawr Spread of sea buckthorn Introduction of second sex Site divided into high, Mechanical clearance Fixed point photography Issue of archaeology
from 1950s onwards of plants medium and low priority Aerial photography Techniques included foliar spray
Reduction in rabbit grazing areas for sea buckthorn Field surveys -2 years after Cutting and stump treatment with
control clearance and then every herbicide
five years Extraction using heavy machinery

Issues: colonisation of cleared areas

by ruderal species e.g. ragwort,
rosebay willow-herb and Himalayan
balsam
Smoke production from burning sea
buckthorn

Saltfleetby– Spread of sea buckthorn Lack of grazing since Maintain 50% as Grazing Fixed Point photography, Re-establish grazing in 1978
Theddlethorpe scrub 1930s , natural succession, permanent grassland, 25% aerial photography and
NNR dune accretion, and decline as permanent scrub and Coppicing Common Standards Coppicing started 1990 but did not
Spread of invasive in rabbits from 1950s 25% as grassland/scrub Monitoring (for Dunes with achieve desired results
clematis (negative mosaic Scrub control on fore- Hippophae rhamnoides)
impact of sea buckthorn dunes Five year scrub management plan
scrub) on current objectives to clear 17ha
Techniques include of scrub
mechanical clearance,
herbicide, removal of re-
growth (grass), fencing and
introduction of grazing

Gibraltar Point Spread of sea buckthorn Loss of sheep grazing and Establish a balance of Re-introduction of grazing Aerial photography Sheep re-introduced in mid-1980s to
NNR from 1950s onwards rabbit grazing habitats. No significant demonstrates pattern of grey dunes
decrease in total coverage Coppicing scrub colonisation
Spread of invasive from 1999 baseline but Undergraduate research Coppicing started 1995-1996. 0.5
clematis (negative control where it threatens Laissez-faire in some areas project from University ha /year on 20 year rotation
impact of sea buckthorn other habitats of York to assess grazing
scrub) Maintain age classes preferences of Hebridean
sheep and Dexter cattle Laissez faire approach allows
dieback of scrub and re-colonisation

31
 6. Follow up and action points

Graham Weaver
Current status and management of sea buckthorn
A starting point for a wider national review would be to send out questionnaires to sand dune site
managers repeating the surveys from the 1970s and 1980s and drawing information together to
develop up-to-date strategies.

There have been some early discussions concerning the value of repeating the national sand dune
survey. Within this context it would be worth exploring the role of remote sensing in mapping the
extent of sea buckthorn scrub on UK dunes.

If remote sensing can provide a good picture of the extent of sea buckthorn scrub on dunes (although
it may be difficult to identify colonising scrub within dune grassland) a bid for funding could be
prepared.

Setting a nationally agreed strategy for the management of sea buckthorn

Natural England will raise the issue of a coordinated approach to sea buckthorn with the other
Country Agencies (Scottish Natural Heritage, Countryside Council for Wales and the Northern Ireland
Environment Agency) and the Irish National Parks and Wildlife Service. If there is agreement a national
(GB and Ireland) strategy could be developed.

A ‘national strategy’ would identify individual sites by, initially, three categories – eradication,
containment, and ‘dynamic management’. The ‘containment’ and ‘dynamic management’ categories
would be further refined. Within each country this would need to be a collaborative process between
the Country Agency and each site’s management organisation. The strategy will help to inform
resource requirements.

Developing guidelines for management, post-clearance of sea buckthorn scrub

The workshop showed that techniques for the removal of sea buckthorn scrub are well understood,
although there is still a discussion to be had over whether or not to minimise soil disturbance at the
time of clearance (which links directly with post-clearance management).

The workshop also demonstrated that there is much less understanding about optimum post-clearance
management to develop dune grassland and there is a clear need for some guidance.

The Sand Dune and Shingle Network could help to develop draft guidelines, including case studies.

Future monitoring requirements

There is little information on the soils under sea buckthorn on Great Britain and Irish dunes, or on how
they change post-clearance. This is of utmost importance in understanding what type of grassland can
develop, and over what timescales, without major dune remobilisation to expose raw sand. Therefore
soil sampling needs to be incorporated into site monitoring and the preferred soil sampling techniques
should be identified.

There is little collated information on sea buckthorn succession on Great Britain and Irish dunes.
It would be valuable to assemble information from site managers and through the ‘grey literature’
(management plans, site reports etc) to build up picture of sea buckthorn succession and to publish a
more thorough review.

32
7. References
Ainsworth, (1994), Hippophae rhamnoides L. pp 206 In: A. Stewart, D.A, Pearman and C.D. Preston
(eds) Scarce Plants in Britain. Peterborough, JNCC

Bacon, J. (ed)(2003). The scrub management handbook: guidance on the management of scrub
on nature conservation sites. The Forum for the Application of Conservation Techniques/ English
Nature. Available at: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/IN124
[Accessed: 5th July 2011]

Baker, R.M. (1996) The future of the invasive shrub, Sea Buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) on the
west coast of Britain. Aspects of Applied Biology 44, 461-468

Bartish, I. V., Kadereit, J.W. and Comes, H.P. (2006) Late Quaternary history of Hippophaea
rhamnoides L. (Elaeagnaceae) inferred from chalcone synthase intron (Chsi) sequences and
chloroplast DNA variation. Molecular Ecology 15, 4065 - 4083

BTCV (1979). Coastlands: A Practical Conservation Handbook. BTCV, London

BTCV (1986). Sand Dunes: A Practical Conservation Handbook. BTCV, Wallingford.

Cooter, S. (2009) Managing for dune scrub on the Lincolnshire coast. Conservation Land
Management, Volume 7, number 2

Dargie, T. (1992). Historical extent, potential threat and control of Sea Buckthorn Hippophae
rhamnoides L. at Merthyr Mawr Warren, South Wales. Report to the Countryside Council of Wales.

Dargie, T.C.D. (1993) Sand dune vegetation survey of Great Britain: a national inventory. Part 2:
Scotland. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Dargie, T.C.D. (1995) Sand dune vegetation survey of Great Britain: a national inventory. Part 3:
Wales. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Dargie, T. (2002) Ecological assessment of Hippophae rhamnoides. Unpublished report to English

Nature, Contract No. 12.5.2-2

East Lothian Council (2010). Beating buckthorn? A review of the management of sea buckthorn in
East Lothian and a vision for the future. Unpublished report, East Lothian Council.

Ellis, R.J.(ed.) (1983). Murlough NNR Scientific Report 1982-83. The National Trust.

Gillham, M.E. (1987) Sand dunes- Heritage Coast, JMAC, 27-41

Groves, (1958), Hippophae rhamnoides in the British Isles. Proceedings, Botanical Society of the
British Isles 3, 1 – 21

Hantson, W., Kooistra, L., and Slim, P.A. (2010). Alien and invasive woody species in the dunes
of the Wadden Sea Island of Vlieland: A remote sensing approach. Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra-
report 2101 available at http://content.alterra.wur.nl/Webdocs/PDFFiles/Alterrarapporten/
AlterraRapport2101.pdf [Accessed: 5th July 2011]

Harrison, J. (2008). Control of Sea Buckthorn Hippophae rhamnoides at Aberlady Bay Local Nature
Reserve, East Lothian, over the next 20 years and beyond. (East Lothian Council, unpublished
report)

33
 Houston J. (2008 a). Management of Natura 2000 habitats. 2130 *Fixed coastal dunes with
herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’). European Commission
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/habitats/pdf/2130_Fixed_
coastal_dunes.pdf [Accessed: 5th July 2011]

Houston J. A. (2008 b). Management of Natura 2000 habitats. 2190 Humid dune slacks. European
Commission
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/habitats/pdf/2190_Humid_
dune_slacks.pdf [Accessed: 5th July 2011]

Mortimer, S.R., Turner, A.J., Brown, V.K., Fuller, R.J., Good, J.E.G., Bell, S.A., Stevens, P.A., Norris,
D., Bayfield, N., Ward, L.K. (2000) The Nature Conservation Value of scrub in Britain. JNCC Report
No. 308, JNCC, Peterborough.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2007). Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the
implementation of the Habitats Directive from January 2001 to December 2006. Peterborough:
JNCC. Available from: www.jncc.gov.uk/article17 [Accessed: 5th July 2011]

Li, T.S.C. and Beveridge, T.H.J (2003) Sea Buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.): production and
utilization. NRC Research Press, Ottawa.

Pearson, M.C. and Rogers, J.A. (1962) Biological flora of the British Isles: Hippophae rhamnoides L.
Journal of Ecology, 50: 501-513

Perring F.H and Walters S. M., (1962) Atlas of the British Flora. London, Thomas Nelson and Sons.

Preston, C.D., Pearman, D.A. and Dines, T.D. (eds.) (2002) New Atlas of the British & Irish Flora.
Oxford University Press.

Radley, G.P. (1994) Sand dune vegetation survey of Great Britain: a national inventory. Part 1:
England. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

Ranwell, D.S. (ed.) (1972). The management of Sea Buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L) on
Selected Sites in Great Britain. The Nature Conservancy, Coastal Ecology Research Station. Report
of the Hippophae Study Group. Available at: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/7928/ [Accessed: 5th July
2011]

Richards, E.G. and Burningham, H. (2011). Hippophae rhamnoides on a coastal dune system: a
thorny issue? Journal of Coastal Conservation 15(1): 73-85

Rodwell J.S. (ed) (2000) British Plant Communities. Volume 5: Maritime Communities and
Vegetation of Open Habitats. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Rooney, P. (1998) A thorny problem. Enact, 6(1), 12-14

Rogers, J.A. (1961) The autecology of Hippophae rhamnoides L. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Nottingham

Tansley A. G. (1965) The British Islands and their vegetation. 2 vols. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.

Venner, J.P.F. (1971). The eradication of Hippophae rhamnoides L from the Braunton Burrows Sand
Dune System. Senior Warden Project Report.

Ward, L.K. (1972) The status of Hippophae as part of the British Flora pp 3-6 in D.S. Ranwell (ed)

34
The management of Sea Buckthorn Hippophaë rhamnoides L. on selected sites in Great Britain.
Norwich, Nature Conservancy

Links to other documents/organisations [Accessed: 5th July 2011]

Sand dune and shingle network:

www.hope.ac.uk/coast

The scrub management handbook: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/

IN124

The herbicide handbook:

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/IN125

Grazing Animals Project (GAP):

http://www.grazinganimalsproject.org.uk/

The breeds profile:

http://www.grazinganimalsproject.org.uk/breed_profiles_handbook.html

The nature conservation value of scrub in Britain (JNCC report 308)

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2445

Condition assessments of protected sites (SSSIs and SACs) – Common Standards Monitoring:
Sand dunes – http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2204
Introduction to CSM – http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2201

UK report to EU on Conservation Status of Annex 1 habitats, including ‘Sea buckthorn scrub’:

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4064

EU ‘composite reports’ on Annex 1 habitats, including ‘Sea buckthorn scrub’:

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/chapter9

35
 8. Workshop participants

Alison Downie Northern Ireland Environment Agency

Brian Banks Swift Ecology
Claire Weaver Natural England
Duncan Ludlow Countryside Council for Wales
David Pocklington East Lindsey District Council
Deborah Jefferson Hartlepool Borough Council
Duncan Priddle East Lothian Council
Graham Weaver Natural England
John Houston Liverpool Hope University
Kev Wilson Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
Lynn Jopling Scottish Golf Environment Group
Neil Clark East Lothian Council
Nicola Hawkeswood Defence Estates
Pat Doody National Coastal Consultants
Paul Rooney Liverpool Hope University
Ben Burgess Creative Nature UK Ltd
Sally Edmondson Liverpool Hope University
Sam Provoost INBO
Sarah-Jane Murphy Northern Ireland Environment Agency
Simon Cooter Natural England
Simeon Jones Carmarthenshire County Council
Andrew Gibson Yorkshire Wildlife Trust
Rob Lidstone-Scott Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
Roger Briggs Natural England
John Walker Natural England
Richard Ablitt Natural England

Sand Dune and Shingle Network Occasional Paper Series

1. The conservation and management of vegetated coastal shingle in England. J.A.Houston, P.J.Rooney
and J.P.Doody, 2009.

2. The conservation and management of coastal dunes in North Holland. J.A.Houston and S.E.Edmondson,
2010.

3. The conservation and management of Sea Buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides) in the UK.
P.J. Rooney, J.A. Houston, G. Weaver, 2011

4. Coastal dune management at selected sites in The Netherlands: South Holland and Zeeland.
C.N. Durkin, 2011

Information on the Occasional Paper series can be found on the website of the Sand Dune and
Shingle Network: www.hope.ac.uk/coast

Contact: [email protected]

36