[fishfan]

The lower down the river you go then nutrient levels do increase.,conductivity readings will tell you that. Salmon though are a net exporter of nutrients and in the upper reaches of any river (where nutrient input is very limited) the levels can be very low, again take conductivity readings and compare them to the lower reaches. As the nutrients are low in these upper reaches this impacts on invertebrate and algae production which ultimately impacts on juvenile salmon production.
As I previously mentioned nearly all the male fish die. If you look at a spawning area these fish hang around defending redds and unless there are means of retaining the carcasses in these areas they are washed out. Once gone these vital nutrients are lost. They are meant to pass these nutrients on and without the LWD or similar this cannot happen.
Salmon carcasses washed up a bank will provide nutrients for the riparian zone, but crucially trees allow the nutrients fish provide to the aquatic environment to be retained when those trees fall in the river and catch carcasses.

 

[AyrshireAngler]

I enjoyed it, and at least it brings a discussion to the table about other possible factors other than just salmon farms, seals, and cormorants etc. I agree there are many rivers in Russia and Alaska that have little woodland, but their water temperatures are surely lower than ours. I spoke to a ghillie on the Naver who was concerned about the water temperature of the river being very close to fatal. With global temperatures rising, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to place a few native well placed trees in places to provide shade and insect life to feed juvenile fish.

 

[Horsbrugh]

I enjoyed it, and at least it brings a discussion to the table about other possible factors other than just salmon farms, seals, and cormorants etc. I agree there are many rivers in Russia and Alaska that have little woodland, but their water temperatures are surely lower than ours. I spoke to a ghillie on the Naver who was concerned about the water temperature of the river being very close to fatal. With global temperatures rising, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to place a few native well placed trees in places to provide shade and insect life to feed juvenile fish.

Rising water temperatures, especially in the upper reaches, are obviously now a big cause for concern on many rivers. As you quite rightly state, the right trees, planted where they will provide shade and create habitat, would certainly be beneficial. Something that is already being looked at by many river boards. Unfortunately, that is not what the Riverwoods project appears to be about. It's primary objective appears to be about forest creation and rewinding.

While careful riparian planting would undoubtedly be beneficial in helping lower water temps, mass afforestation could possibly have a negative effect, when you take into account the amount of water that would be required by all the trees. The last thing we need in these shallow headwaters, is a reduction in water.

The main obstacle, given the many miles of fencing required, is that at present, there is no funding available for the smaller scale type of riparian planting that would provide this much needed shading. It's obviously much easier to heat or cool a smaller volume of water than a large one, therefore, it is planting alongside the headwaters and tributaries that would provide the most benefit. Unfortunately, the current grants are all geared towards much larger scale operations that help address the Scot. Governments carbon reduction targets and not the cooling of rivers. Hopefully, this oversight will be addressed, as to achieve the maximum benefit, it is these smaller scale plantings that are required asap.

 

[chrishconnolly]

It's great for them (the scientists) to decide that we now need a suitable habitat for the spawning areas on rivers.
If it works then I'm all for it but for me to increase the diminishing salmon population we need more salmon on the redds in the first place.
To get more salmon on the reads we need more smolts getting back to sea.
To get more smolts back to sea we need a safe passage for them.
To get a safe passage we need to control the predators inriver and in the estuary for the smolts leaving and the salmon returning.
Just saying !!!!

 

[Bothy Cat]

Those who missed "Riverwoods" the first time round may be interested to know it's being repeated on Monday 7th Nov @ 8.00pm on Channel 5SELECT.

 

[goosander]

Do not tell the government that we need to plant trees in the upper reaches as they will start planting thousands of conifers. Then we are back to acid rain again.

 

[barbonboy]

Those who missed "Riverwoods" the first time round may be interested to know it's being repeated on Monday 7th Nov @ 8.00pm on Channel 5SELECT.

Thanks for that.👍

 

[MarkR]

Do not tell the government that we need to plant trees in the upper reaches as they will start planting thousands of conifers. Then we are back to acid rain again.

I don't think that it was trees that caused acid rain.

 

[barbonboy]

Do not tell the government that we need to plant trees in the upper reaches as they will start planting thousands of conifers. Then we are back to acid rain again.

We can introduce some beavers to fell them..

 

[keirross]

Do not tell the government that we need to plant trees in the upper reaches as they will start planting thousands of conifers. Then we are back to acid rain again.

Aye. Its quite some stuff to shove pines and birches gravel and conifers and a river and CO2 fish board too.

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

fantastic plan.
plant loads of trees then introduced beavers to chop them all down.
I wonder if these highland estates where the introduction of beavers to the head waters are probably doing some good have actually been down to the big rivers further down and seen the total destruction they have caused with no dams or benefits. And now no trees.
I can imagine what the estate owner on the Tay that had to spend hundreds of thousands bolstering the banks of his beat after the beavers totally destroyed them was thinking listening to that program last night.

 

[Jockiescott]

Do not tell the government that we need to plant trees in the upper reaches as they will start planting thousands of conifers. Then we are back to acid rain again.

That is basically what they are calling for here in Northern Ireland.

They are calling for triple the amount of trees planted than what currently is being planted.

Of course the timber producers are suggesting that that's a great idea but slow growing trees are next to useless and we should be growing trees for the timber industry. They want the planting carried out on a 75% to 25% ratio of timber producing trees to slow growing varieties.

Of course they say all the correct buzz words of "Jobs", "the economy", "helping to keep the cost of timber down for local builders", etc.

The Joe Bloggs of this world simply dont know any better so would support this without batting an eyelid.

 

[gwelsher]

It's available on Channel 5 catchup

 

[williegunn2]

Has anyone worked out how much water trees need to grow?

100-foot-tall tree has about. 200,000 leaves. A tree this size can take 11,000 gallons of water from the soil

https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/r...ater-resources/how-much-water-do-forests-use/

Water use varies greatly throughout the year; maximum daily transpiration loss for large individual trees can vary between 500 l to 2000 l on a hot summer day.
On a catchment basis in the wetter uplands, the additional water use by a complete cover of mature conifer forest can result in a 15 to 20% reduction in the annual volume of streamflow.
The impact on water supplies can be even greater in the lowlands, where a conifer forest can reduce the annual volume of water recharging a groundwater aquifer by 70% or more compared to grass.

Did anyone tell the film makers that Scotland has Atlantic salmon, not all of which die after spawning so the amount of protein released will be much lower.

Rewilders dream, just a pity there are so many people living in the UK and needing to eat.

 

[Handel]

That is basically what they are calling for here in Northern Ireland.

They are calling for triple the amount of trees planted than what currently is being planted.

Of course the timber producers are suggesting that that's a great idea but slow growing trees are next to useless and we should be growing trees for the timber industry. They want the planting carried out on a 75% to 25% ratio of timber producing trees to slow growing varieties.

Of course they say all the correct buzz words of "Jobs", "the economy", "helping to keep the cost of timber down for local builders", etc.

The Joe Bloggs of this world simply dont know any better so would support this without batting an eyelid.

And who checks they actually do this? Talk to the blokes doing the planting and after a couple of pints they admit the reality is more like 90:10.

 

[keirstream]

Never watched it but is sounds to me just another scientific dossier full of bullsh*t.
And what does Peter Capaldi know about Atlantic salmon. Does he even fish?
Probably the nearest he has been to one was in his family's chipper.

 

[Loxie]

Never watched it but is sounds to me just another scientific dossier full of bullsh*t.

I was enjoy the bullsh*t inflation as well. I see some muppet was prepared to up the usual ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim the we used have 30% of smolts return as adults, disregard he entirely made up claim that 40% of smolts used to return as adults and go straight for the new record made up statistic of 50%. Its really hard to take the film seriously when it allows that sort of BS to be broadcast as fact and that hides any potentially worthwhile points that may have been made.

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

Never watched it but is sounds to me just another scientific dossier full of bullsh*t.

The main focus was on the Alladale Tom. It's worth watching just to see what they are doing up there.
Sadly you do have to listen to a lot of BS.
They annoyed me straight away by saying our Atlantic salmon die after spawning and their nutrients feed all the trees in the surrounding areas.
We've no pacific salmon to die in numbers and no bears to eat them and then dump the nutrients in the Forrest's.

 

[keirross]

"Exactly. It is a bit of a shame that useful riparian planting often gets confused with larger scale landscape planting."

Rather frustratingly, the only grants available for tree planting, at present, do not apply to small riparian planting. Instead, the grants are all for much larger scale projects, which often provides minimal benefit to the river. Riparian planting, that would provide maximum benefit, in the form of habitat and shading, primarily in the upper reaches, currently, are too small scale to benefit from the current grants. The trees themselves are relatively inexpensive, it's the fencing that makes these small scale plantings so expensive.
Hopefully, the Scottish Gov. will acknowledge this oversight and amend the criteria, to allow smaller scale riparian planting to also benefit from grant funding.

Scotland (co UK), currently rorts that financial system enabled via a 'carbon price' - ie a tax on gas and coal currently £80/ton CO2 emissions ie. a tax across designated co2 emissions.

Really, are we being asked here to shut down cement (construction), coal (steel) and phosphates (agriculture) production in order to save the 'global climate'?

 

[keirross]

That is basically what they are calling for here in Northern Ireland.

They are calling for triple the amount of trees planted than what currently is being planted.

Of course the timber producers are suggesting that that's a great idea but slow growing trees are next to useless and we should be growing trees for the timber industry. They want the planting carried out on a 75% to 25% ratio of timber producing trees to slow growing varieties.

Of course they say all the correct buzz words of "Jobs", "the economy", "helping to keep the cost of timber down for local builders", etc.

The Joe Bloggs of this world simply dont know any better so would support this without batting an eyelid.