Second PROTREE Stakeholder Workshop
December 7th 2015
-1-
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 3
WORKSHOP PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................ 5
GENERAL SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IN THE PROTREE PROJECT ............................................................... 6
WORKSHOP DISCUSSION SUMMARIES ................................................................................................................ 7
THEME 1: TAKING ACTION FOR DOTHISTROMA-WHAT CAN BE DONE? ............................................................................... 7
THEME 2: FURTHERING OUR COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF RESILIENCE ........................................................................... 9
THEME 3: EXPLORING SCENARIOS ........................................................................................................................................... 10
PILOT CHOICE EXPERIMENT ON PERCEPTIONS OF FOREST DISEASE CONTROL STRATEGIES BY
FORESTRY PROFESSIONALS.................................................................................................................................. 12
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ......................................................................................................................... 14
LIST OF ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
ANNEX 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................................................ 15
ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME ....................................................................................................................................... 16
-2-
Executive summary

The PROTREE project aims to measure how variable and adaptable threats are to Scots
pine, to test how much variation there is in the tree species in resistance to these
threats, and to find ways to get people involved in making healthier pine forests.
Science is an important part of addressing pest and disease problems, but to have an
impact research must remain firmly rooted in the realities of tree and forest
management on the ground. A key aim of PROTREE is therefore to seek the active input
of a range of relevant stakeholders to make sure the science in the project stays
relevant to the management challenges faced by all interested parties.

The second interactive, participatory PROTREE stakeholder workshop was organised
in December 2015 at RBGE, bringing together and gathering input from 34 scientists,
practitioners and policy makers.

The workshop focussed on three main themes: 1. Taking action for Dothistroma what can be done? 2. Furthering our common understanding of resilience. 3.
Exploring scenarios.

Monitoring of Dothistroma was considered a priority by participants, especially the
presence of the two mating types and the two species of Dothistroma. It was
considered that more effort should be made to bridge the gap between those in
charge of the monitoring and those responsible for conducting research into the
Dothistroma in Britain, in particular to make researchers aware of the samples held
via monitoring and to make these available to the research community.

Participants highlighted the importance of taking measures to prevent introduction
of the southern race of Dothistroma identified by Richard Ennos’s research into
Caledonian pinewoods.

There was discussion about how difficult it is to encourage the natural regeneration
that is required to allow evolution of the host to the challenge presented by
Dothistroma and other pests and pathogens.

A number of definitions were provided for resilience, all with a common theme of
facing future challenges. The issues of risk and uncertainty were also identified as
being closely linked to resilience.

Participants also discussed what could be done to improve resilience, including future
proofing by e.g. regularly thinning or managing existing woodlands; and identifying
which areas of forest are at risk and taking targeted action.

From a policy perspective, a number of research needs were identified including
identifying acceptable levels of loss, identifying possible scenarios or alternatives to
existing practice, and scientifically-based advice to give to owners to maximise their
returns in the future.
-3-

A model was presented to participants, which aims to simulate tree performance
under different environmental conditions subject to their genetic suitability. The
model is intended to generalise adaptive processes, and is entirely dependent on the
underlying assumptions on which it is based. The model can be used experimentally
to test different scenarios, such as fine or broad-scale adaptation, or increasing
climatic variability, which would then impact upon the choice of seed source for a
given location.

It was put forward that different users of the model have different objectives. There
was interest as to whether an economic component could be incorporated, as many
would find this desirable.

Interest was also expressed on the use of the model in the context of predictiveprovenancing, and informing on measure of risk (for example in terms of changing
practices).

A choice experiment was carried out to improve our understanding of preferences of
forest owners and managers with respect to different tree disease control measures
and their possible financing by the government.

Seven attributes were presented to workshop participants. The ranking data show that
two attributes, frequency of inspection visits and bonus for inviting neighboring forest
and woodland owners to join the disease control scheme, had the lowest ranks and
were also most frequently ignored by respondents in their decision making. Together,
these findings might suggest that we should exclude these attributes from the
description of the choice situations.

Attributes such as grant payment rate and disease management strategy are the
highest ranked and least ignored ones. Three remaining attributes (distance to the
nearest disease outbreak, proportion of forest area under control, and contract length)
were approximately of equal importance to the survey respondents. So we can
conclude that a choice situation described by five highest ranking attributes may be
considered a well-balanced description of the situation of interest.
-4-
Workshop Process
The first part of the workshop focussed on a general introduction to tree health issues, and
the PROTREE project. Stephen Cavers (CEH) opened the workshop by welcoming all
participants and outlining the aims of the workshop. This was followed by a presentation on
a policy perspective on plant health & the new SG Centre of Expertise by Jane Chard (SASA)
and a practitioner’s perspective on Dothistroma by Robert Clamp (FC). An update on
Dothistroma based on the PROTREE project results was presented by Richard Ennos
(Edinburgh University), Annika Perry (CEH) and Marta Piotrowska (SRUC). Oleg Sheremet
(University of St Andrews) led us through a choice experiment, the results of which he
presented in the afternoon. All presentations can be found at www.protree.net.
Following on from these overviews, participants were invited to join one of three facilitated
round tables. Participants were then invited to change table/topic, form new discussion
groups and consider the theme assigned to the second table for a further 30 minutes. Finally
participants changed table for a last round that would allow them to address a third theme.
The following themes were the focus of the break-out groups:
 Break-out Group 1: Taking action for Dothistroma - what can be done? Facilitated by
Annika Perry (CEH), rapporteur Joan Cottrell (FR);
 Break-out Group 2: Furthering our common understanding of resilience. Facilitated
by Mariella Marzano (FR), rapporteur Juliette Young (CEH);
 Break-out Group 3: Exploring scenarios. Facilitated by Stephen Cavers and Richard
Whittet (CEH), rapporteur Kevin Donnelly (CEH).
The workshop concluded with a short plenary reporting from the table facilitators
summarizing the key points each table had identified for each theme, and a discussion led by
Max Coleman (RBGE) on the dissemination strategy of the PROTREE project.
-5-
General Summary of progress in the PROTREE project
The project made significant advances during 2015, with particularly exciting new results on
the nature of the Dothistroma pathogen, variation in DNB resistance in Scots pine, and first
steps in uncovering Scots pine’s extended phenotype – the microbes that live in the needle
tissue. Each of these results significantly extends what was previously known about the DNBpine system and should deliver essential knowledge for managing the disease in the UK and
elsewhere. The key progress from this year was:

Variation in the host tree species: New data were collected from the distributed 3site trial of Scots pine (1848 trees), recording survival, height, diameter and bud
and flowering phenology. Occurrence of insect associates and pests were also
recorded for the first time, including detailed assessment of damage due to pine
weevil. During these surveys, Dothistroma needle blight was noted as present at all
trial sites. Needles were taken from all trees to allow biochemical characterisation
and identification of the endophytic fungal community by DNA sequencing.

Extended phenotype. Characterisation of the needle endophyte community is
proving to be one of the most exciting strands of the project. Sequencing has now
been completed and whilst it is clear that endophyte communities differ across the
trial sites in general (suggesting perhaps that trial trees have not yet “filtered” out a
specific pine-associated community), within each trial site there were significant
differences between families in their fungal associates. The next step will be to test
whether these needle fungi play any role in resistance to disease.

Variation in Dothistroma. Lots of new results came through on the priority
pathogen. Substantial genetic variation was identified within the Scottish
population, with some types associated with native pines whilst others were
associated with Lodgepole pines. This suggests that at least some part of the
Dothistroma population in Scotland is endemic, an idea lent further support by the
finding of considerable genetic variation for resistance within the native
pinewoods. There was positive news in that nursery treatments do not seem to
have driven the development of fungicide resistance and the main control
chemicals were broadly effective on both nursery and forest isolates.

On several other fronts, new research is underway. Experiments to test host
variation in susceptibility to pine lappet moth, and Pine Pitch canker are underway.
A new eco-evolutionary model has been developed to allow testing of the outcomes
of management strategies on tree populations. Genotyping of trees from DNBinoculation trials has been completed and data are now being tested to identify
genes associated with resistance.

Finally, several activities for communicating PROTREE science are planned for
2016, so look out for us at Science Festivals and elsewhere. Or view our new film
here: https://vimeo.com/140911259
-6-
Workshop discussion summaries
Theme 1: Taking action for Dothistroma-what can be done?
1. Continued monitoring of disease was considered to be a priority and participants
thought that particular attention should be focused on the presence of the two mating
types and the two species of Dothistroma. It became clear during discussions that there
was very little communication between those in charge of the monitoring and those
responsible for conducting research into the Dothistroma in Britain. There was
agreement that this was a key missing link and more effort should be made to make
researchers aware of the samples held via monitoring and to make these available to
the research community. It was highlighted that a strategy is in place should D. pini be
identified in the UK, but it was not known among participants at the workshop what
that strategy is.
2. The group discussed the presentation given by the forest manager in Scottish Lowland
District. He clarified a misconception that they were actively discouraging regeneration
of Scots pine. Scots pine is not included in the species mixtures that are currently being
planted but their policy is not to destroy any natural Scots pine regeneration that does
occur. Inclusion of other non-susceptible tree species may have a benefit in reducing
inoculum load for the Scots pine that are on the site. He additionally noted that in areas
where it is mixed with naturally regenerating birch, Scots pine seems to be growing
well.
3. There was agreement that it was sensible to reduce the amount of Dothistroma
inoculum by removing Lodgepole and Corsican pine plantations in close proximity to
Caledonian pine woods. However, it was recognised that the evidence that
Dothistroma can migrate over distances of at least 1.4km, buffer zones are unlikely to
be totally effective.
4. There was discussion that if we were to promote evolution of low susceptibility to
Dothistroma in our forests we needed to allow natural selection to operate on new
generations of pines that have been subjected to Dothistroma in situ. Collection and
growing up of seed grown on or near the planting site for use on that site would allow
low susceptibility to the races of Dothistroma in the local area to evolve. Therefore,
from this point of view it would be advisable to source local seed and grow them in
local nurseries. It was even suggested that it might be good practice to plant such
material even if shows some sign of the disease – this is currently not allowed. Locally
sourced material are likely to be well adapted to local conditions and therefore are
likely to be healthier than non-local material. Healthy material tends to succumb to
disease less frequently. It was mentioned that 4-5 year old plants that show signs of
infection grow well if there is plenty of air circulation around them.
5. There was discussion about how difficult it is to encourage the natural regeneration
that is required to allow evolution of the host to the challenge presented by
Dothistroma and other pests and pathogens. Erection and maintenance of fences to
-7-
exclude herbivores is extremely expensive and even targeted areas of fencing are not
permitted in areas occupied by capercaillie. Scarification of the ground does have some
beneficial effects on regeneration of Scots pine. Assisted regeneration, through the
planting of locally sourced seed within the CPI faces two potential problems: 1) it is
taken away from the site and grown in nurseries where environmental conditions
(including exposure to pathogens) is different to that faced at the CPI; 2) locally
sourced seed may not be particularly local and may therefore be maladapted to the
conditions at the site. It was noted however that silviculture tends to have more of an
impact on the long-term survival and health of transplanted trees than the variation in
the environment that they are exposed to.
6. It was considered particularly important to take measures to prevent introduction of
the southern race of Dothistroma identified by Richard Ennos’s research into
Caledonian pinewoods. Currently Caledonian pinewoods contain little or no strains of
mating type I whereas the southern race consists of more or less equal ratios of the
two mating types. Presence of both mating types is a prerequisite for sexual
reproduction and subsequent evolution of the pathogen, so it is desirable to reduce
opportunities for this in the Caledonian pinewoods. Good practice to encourage
effective biosecurity is therefore a priority and the public should be made aware of the
importance of taking measures to support this. It was noted that research from this
project would support and strengthen policy on biosecurity requirements for
nurseries.
7. The likelihood that Caledonian pinewoods contain sufficient diversity to allow them to
evolve and cope with Dothistroma and other pests and diseases was discussed but we
did not arrive at agreement on this topic. There was also disagreement about what
actions should be taken to prepare for the possibility that Caledonian Scots pine forests
would be lost and what should be done to provide a similar habitat based on a different
tree species. Is the aim to conserve the assembly of species (i.e. ecosystem function) or
the host tree species itself? There was agreement that introduction of alternative tree
species was not without its own risks such as invasiveness and high susceptibility to
native pests and pathogens which could lead to an imbalance between native host and
native pathogens due to increased inoculum load.
8. We discussed the feasibility of spraying forests if all other control measures fail.
Currently, trials are based on aerial application of copper based fungicides which
probably destroy both harmful and beneficial endophytesed on sprayed needles. This
is considered a safety net to control DNB in the UK with no immediate plans to
implement it beyond trials. Aerial testing was conducted this year with further trials
planned for the future.
9. The finding that there are potentially different races of Dothistroma in the UK with
different origins was positively received, but the assumption that one of these races is
therefore native to the UK was met with scepticism by some: it was suggested that
there may be other explanations for these findings. It was also suggested that herbaria
-8-
may be valuable sources of material with which to test for presence and variation of
Dothistroma over temporal scales.
Theme 2: Furthering our common understanding of resilience
1. A number of definitions were provided for resilience, all with a common theme of
facing future challenges. These included defining resilience “as set of characteristics
that will protect a thing from a threat”, “building resistance against impacts”, and
working so that “whatever happens in the future, the forest will be in best condition to
manage future risks or events”. According to one participant, enough resilience meant
facing up to the important changes ahead.
2. Participants questioned the difference between the concepts of resilience and
sustainability. Participants also discussed what makes a system resilient – this issue
varied in responses according to different perspectives. From an ecological
perspective, in addition to species diversity, participants noted the need to think of
both bottom-up and top-down issues including species complexes, combinations of
species, structural diversity. From a commercial perspective there was a need to be
resilient in terms of the market.
3. One discussion focussed around the difficulty in knowing what “enough resilience”
meant. In terms of species diversity for example, some participants questioned
whether there could be room to keep certain species to make a system resilience, but
not others. The bottom line was that there were changes ahead, and there would be a
need for difficult decisions to be taken on what needed to be kept against specific
threats – but who would or should make these decisions and based on what evidence?
4. The issue of risk was mentioned by a number of participants, many of which
acknowledged the importance of identifying areas at risk and how this may impact on
subsequent decision-making (for example in terms of choice of species and locations to
plant), as well as the different attitudes to risk, for example between commercial
private owners and nurseries (where turn-over many be much higher).
5. Uncertainty was also identified as a key issue linked to resilience. While some
participants claimed that it was impossible to reach the outcome of “resilient forests”
because of constant changes, others noted that careful observation could help reduce
uncertainty, and others highlighted certain aspects, e.g. economic value, as being more
easily modelled and understood.
6. Resilience was also related to scale, both spatial and temporal. Resilience was
described by participants at different levels of organisation, from genetic to landscape
resilience. Participants also noted the need to consider temporal scale with some
participants questioning the need to think about what point in time we are thinking of
in terms of resilience.
7. Participants also discussed what could be done to improve resilience. From a nursery
perspective, one suggestion was to engender debate on root structure. Other
suggestions included an increased focus on protecting what we already have (in
-9-
addition to woodland creation), and the need to think of ‘back-up’ (with the risk that
reliance on a small number of species reduces that back-up).
8. Future proofing was also suggested as a strategy to promote resilience, including
regularly thinning or managing existing woodlands; and identifying which areas of
forest are at risk and take action. This identification process could have a “traffic light”
system: with areas that will be at risk (red), areas that could be at risk 20-30 years
from now (amber) and areas unlikely to be at risk (green).
9. From a policy perspective, a number of research needs were identified including
identifying acceptable levels of loss, identifying possible scenarios or alternatives to
existing practice, and scientifically-based advice to give to owners to maximise their
returns in the future. Compelling evidence would be needed if any current practices
were to be changed or adapted – with subsequent work involved in terms of
persuading owners, FC etc. Participants felt the best course of action might be to adapt
and be flexible, and make the most of the information we have.
Theme 3: Exploring scenarios
1. The model demonstrated was designed to simulate tree performance under different
environmental conditions subject to their genetic suitability.
2. It was put forward that different users of the model have different objectives.
Foresters, have differing needs to scientists, for example, and may find output
describing timber yield beneficial. There was interest as to whether an economic
component could be incorporated, as many would find this desirable.
3. Some confusion was expressed with respect to the timescale at which the model
operates. Although the model requires a 'burn-in' period when initialised (simulating
thousands of years of evolution), following this model output should be relevant on the
timescale at which foresters operate. Tree performance may be highly dependent on
the choice of provenance used for planting as a result of past evolutionary processes.
4. There was agreement that there was a danger that some users may interpret the model
results very literally, whereas it is intended only to generalise adaptive processes, and
is entirely dependent on the underlying assumptions on which it is based. For example,
it is currently assumed that species are strongly locally adapted, however this could be
relaxed. Because of this, conclusions need to be drawn carefully.
5. It was stressed that the model can be used experimentally to test different scenarios,
such as fine or broad-scale adaptation, or increasing climatic variability, which would
then impact upon the choice of seed source for a given location. Interest was expressed
on the use of the model in the context of predictive-provenancing, as much of the
argument surrounding this topic is verbal and a means to test different scenarios
would provide a focus for debate. Participants also asked whether real site data would
be used as input in the future, however, as its purpose is to generalise, it was stated
that the model would likely remain abstract.
- 10 -
6. With regard to changing practices, there was an assertion that forest managers are
open to argument with regards to what species they stock, and might be convinced to
change from planting what they know (e.g. Sitka Spruce) to native species, if some
measure of the risk could be provided. It is possible that modelling strategies such as
this one may go some way to addressing these concerns.
7. In the future there is an intention to introduce further layers to the model. Currently, it
includes a climate change component, but may be expanded to incorporate extreme
events such as disease outbreaks, or additional competitive tree species.
- 11 -
Pilot choice experiment on perceptions of forest disease control
strategies by forestry professionals
An Environmental Economics research team at the University of St Andrews designed several
surveys (which include choice experiments) for studying preferences of the general public
and forestry professionals about different forest disease control strategies. These surveys are
part of the Forest Modeling project, which in turn is a part of the broader Tree Health and
Plant Biosecurity Initiative. We are very thankful to Dr. Stephen Cavers and PROTREE team
for providing us with an opportunity to pre-test one of the choice experiments at the 2nd
PROTREE Stakeholder workshop.
Choice experiments are based on the assumption that a researcher can elicit people’s
attitudes and preferences about some situation, policy or product by presenting a respondent
with a sequence of hypothetical multi-option choice situations and collecting and analyzing
their choices. In each such choice situation, or card, there are usually two or three options that
describe possible variants of the policy/product of interest, and each policy variant has
several characteristics (attributes) that are supposed to be important to the respondents. The
underlying theory says that utility (or benefit, or value) of the policy or product to survey
respondents will be reflected in their choices and will be a linear function of the policy’s
characteristics. So the researcher can use the collected answers to estimate individual (and
average) sensitivities to each of the policy attributes, which can in turn serve as input to
further modeling or public policy recommendations.
In particular, we are interested in understanding preferences of forest owners and managers
with respect to different tree disease control measures and their possible financing by the
government. The government might be willing to be involved since controlling diseases
provides benefits for the economy and wider society, not just to forest or woodland owners.
For this survey we are assuming that forest owners would need to sign a “forest disease
management” contract in order to access such grant funding.
So we create a set of hypothetical choice situations, framed as contracts with forest and
woodland owners under a new government-financed grant scheme for disease control. These
contracts are characterized by several attributes, such as contract length, disease control
options, frequency of inspection visits, annual payments from the government etc. (see an
example of the choice card below). We also ask the respondents to rank the attributes and
indicate how important each of the attributes are for their choices.
The results of this pilot choice experiment are quite informative and will be used to adjust the
choice situations we will use to elicit forest owners’ preferences. In particular, the ranking
data show that two attributes, frequency of inspection visits and bonus for inviting
neighbouring forest and woodland owners to join the disease control scheme, have the lowest
ranks. Moreover, these attributes were also most frequently ignored by respondents in their
decision making (see the slide with Estimates 4 in the presentation on the wiki for further
details). Together, these findings might suggest that we should exclude these attribute from
the description of the choice situations.
In addition, attributes such as grant payment rate and disease management strategy are the
highest ranked and least ignored ones. Interestingly enough, three remaining attributes,
- 12 -
distance to the nearest disease outbreak, proportion of forest area under control, and contract
length, are approximately of equal importance to the survey respondents. So we can conclude
that a choice situation described by five highest ranking attributes may be considered a wellbalanced description of the situation of interest.
The results of numerical estimation of the utility model should be taken with certain caution
due to the small sample size (there were only 29 respondents). However, even based on such
a small sample, we see that the respondents have very strong preferences in favor of less
severe disease management strategies, e.g. thinning (selective removal of infected trees) is
preferred to clear fell (removal of all trees on a site with a disease), see Estimates 1 in the
presentation. In particular, the estimate of the average sensitivity to implementing exclusively
the clear fell measure is negative, large, and statistically significant (the slide with Estimates 2
in the presentation). And there is significant individual variability in sensitivities to the choice
situation characteristics, in particular for the distance and controlled area attributes (see
Estimates 3 table). Finally, the positive and significant coefficient estimate for the grant
payment rate shows that the respondents are about 1 percentage point more willing to sign
up for such a disease control contract for every £1 of extra government funding.
We also get a considerable feedback from the pilot survey participants, where they suggested
what other attributes can possibly be included. Most frequently named potential attributes of
a disease control contract are penalties for the failure to act on the contract, or tolerance to a
possible delay of disease control actions (e.g. delay with felling the infected trees), or
conditions under which the government may reclaim the grant; or additional characteristics
of a forest/woodland patch – how remote it is, what is its size, what is the forest type that is
planted, how far is it located with relation to the current disease outbreak etc.
Also very important are the suggestions to consider the trade-off between large proposed
duration of such disease control contracts and high uncertainty about disease arrival and
spread rate, and to account for statutory plant health notices, which require the owner to cut
all trees in the neighbourhood of an infected tree, and which are currently issued for some of
the most widespread tree diseases. The latter means that the possible disease control options
in our government-financed hypothetical disease control contracts may actually be rather
limited. This requires further analysis and, perhaps, reformulation of the choice situations.
- 13 -
Conclusions and next steps
This second workshop was an excellent opportunity to bring together a range of people
interested in tree health together, some of which already knew about and followed the
progress of the PROTREE project, and others who were new to the project. The discussions
provided food for thought for the research team and other participants. A number of
important topics were raised during the workshop, as outlined in this report, and we hope
these discussions continue throughout the lifetime of the PROTREE project, through direct
one-to-one contact between the project researchers and interested parties at meetings,
annual workshops, field visits and forest demonstrations, and other communication through
the project wiki forum and regular email updates.
It would be very helpful for those who attended the workshop to talk to their colleagues about
the PROTREE project, and encourage anyone who is interested to get in touch with us to see
how they could become involved.
Now and in the future we aim for the PROTREE project to continue to offer opportunities for a
wide range of people to get actively involved and to help to shape research that is relevant,
practical and effective.
- 14 -
List of Annexes
Annex 1: List of participants.
Annex 2: Workshop programme.
Annex 1: List of participants
Name
Annika Perry
Ben Griffin
Bill Mason
Carolyn Riddell
Organisation
Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology
Forestry Commission
Forest Research
University of Edinburgh
Chris Ellis
Royal Botanical Garden
Edinburgh
Colin Edwards
Forestry Commission
Duncan Stone
Scottish Natural Heritage
Grant Murray
Alba Trees
Hugh Clayden
Forestry Commission
Jamie Farquhar ConFor
Jane Chard
Science and Advice for Scottish
Agriculture
Jo Taylor
Royal Botanical Garden
Edinburgh
Joan Cottrell
Forest Research
John Morgan
Forestry Commission
John Sutherland Corrour Estate
Juliette Young
Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology
Kevin Donnelly
Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology
Mariella
Forest Research
Marzano
Marta
Scotland’s Rural College
Piotrowska
Max Coleman
Royal Botanical Garden
Edinburgh
Mireia Pecurul
Forest Research
Nick Atkinson
Woodland Trust
Nick Hanley
Oleg Sheremet
Patrick
Sherwood
Paul Svenson
Richard Ennos
University of St Andrews
University of St Andrews
James Hutton Institute
Science and Advice for Scottish
Agriculture
University of Edinburgh
- 15 -
Email
annt@ceh.ac.uk
ben.griffin@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
bill.mason@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
carolynriddell@gmail.com
c.ellis@rbge.ac.uk
colin.edwards@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Duncan.Stone@snh.gov.uk
gm@albatrees.co.uk
Hugh.clayden@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
jamie.farquhar@confor.org.uk
jane.chard@sasa.gsi.gov.uk
J.Taylor2@rbge.ac.uk
Joan.cottrell@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
John.morgan@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
john@corrour.co.uk
jyo@ceh.ac.uk
Kevnne12@ceh.ac.uk
mariella.marzano@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Marta.Piotrowska@sruc.ac.uk
M.Coleman@rbge.ac.uk
mireia.pecurul@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
NickAtkinson@woodlandtrust.org.uk
n.d.hanley@stir.ac.uk
ois2@st-andrews.ac.uk
Patrick.Sherwood@hutton.ac.uk
Paul.svenson@gov.scot
rennos@ed.ac.uk
Richard Whittet
Robert Clamp
Roger Moore
Sharon Clark
Stephen Cavers
Stephen
Woodward
Stewart Snape
Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology
Forestry Commission
Forest Research
Science and Advice for Scottish
Agriculture
Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology
University of Aberdeen
Ricwhi58@ceh.ac.uk
Forestry Commission
stewart.snape@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Robert.clamp@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
Roger.moore@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
sharon.clark@gov.scot
scav@ceh.ac.uk
s.woodward@abdn.ac.uk
N.B. Participants in italics are part of the PROTREE research team.
Annex 2: Workshop programme
10.00-10.30 Registration and coffee on arrival
10.30-12.30 Welcome and introductions
Stephen Cavers – Welcome (5 mins)
Jane Chard – Policy perspective on plant health & the new SG Centre of
Expertise (10 mins)
Robert Clamp – Practice perspective on Dothistroma (15 mins)
Stephen Cavers - Update on project results (15 mins)
Richard Ennos, Annika Perry & Marta Piotrowska – Update on Dothistroma
(30 minutes)
Stephen Cavers – questions & outline of the day (15 minutes)
Oleg Sheremet – Perspectives on tree health (30 minutes)
12.30-13.00 Lunch
13.00-14.30 Group discussions (30 minutes each) on:
- Taking action on Dothistroma: What do we know? What can be done?
- Understanding resilience
- Exploring scenarios
14.30-14.45 Oleg Sheremet - Results from “perspectives on tree health”
14.45-15.00 Max Coleman - Presenting ideas on dissemination of PROTREE
15.00-15.15 Coffee
15.15-15.30 Feedback from group sessions
15.30-16.00 Final plenary discussion
16.00
Close of workshop.
- 16 -